Current opinion in cardiology · 2013
Inferior vena cava filters: indications and management.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sing Ronald F, Fischer Peter E
Аннотация
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review was to examine recent studies concerning the use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.
RECENT FINDINGS: In the past 18 months, the American College of Chest Physicians released the 9th edition of their guideline for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism. There have also been a number of studies reviewing the use of IVC filters in select populations for the prophylactic prevention of pulmonary embolism. Trauma continues to be the leading indication for prophylactic filters in a number of series, but further studies have demonstrated some benefit of prophylactic filters in the bariatric and spine surgery populations. The IVC filter complication rate remains low; however, so does the retrieval rate for potentially removable filters. These retrieval rates are increased with use of dedicated patient tracking mechanisms. Finally, there have been a number of technology updates in the hardware itself, focusing on strut design.
SUMMARY: Despite little change in the society guidelines, the use of vena cava filters (VCFs) continues to rise. Overall, the use of IVC filters, especially in prophylactic situations, will remain controversial until randomized, controlled trials are performed within each specific patient population.
RECENT FINDINGS: In the past 18 months, the American College of Chest Physicians released the 9th edition of their guideline for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism. There have also been a number of studies reviewing the use of IVC filters in select populations for the prophylactic prevention of pulmonary embolism. Trauma continues to be the leading indication for prophylactic filters in a number of series, but further studies have demonstrated some benefit of prophylactic filters in the bariatric and spine surgery populations. The IVC filter complication rate remains low; however, so does the retrieval rate for potentially removable filters. These retrieval rates are increased with use of dedicated patient tracking mechanisms. Finally, there have been a number of technology updates in the hardware itself, focusing on strut design.
SUMMARY: Despite little change in the society guidelines, the use of vena cava filters (VCFs) continues to rise. Overall, the use of IVC filters, especially in prophylactic situations, will remain controversial until randomized, controlled trials are performed within each specific patient population.