American journal of surgery · 2005
Are temporary inferior vena cava filters really temporary?
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Kirilcuk N N, Herget E J, Dicker R A, Spain D A, Hellinger J C, Brundage S I
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite significant risk for venous thromboembolism, severely injured trauma patients often are not candidates for prophylaxis or treatment with anticoagulation. Long-term inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are associated with increased risk of postphlebitic syndrome. Retrievable IVC filters potentially offer a better solution, but only if the filter is removed; our hypothesis is that the most of them are not.
METHODS: This retrospective study queried a level I trauma registry for IVC filter insertion from September 1997 through June 2004.
RESULTS: One IVC filter was placed before the availability of retrievable filters in 2001. Since 2001, 27 filters have been placed, indicating a change in practice patterns. Filters were placed for prophylaxis (n = 11) or for therapy in patients with pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis (n = 17). Of 23 temporary filters, only 8 (35%) were removed.
CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons must critically evaluate indications for IVC filter insertion, develop standard criteria for placement, and implement protocols to ensure timely removal of temporary IVC filters.
METHODS: This retrospective study queried a level I trauma registry for IVC filter insertion from September 1997 through June 2004.
RESULTS: One IVC filter was placed before the availability of retrievable filters in 2001. Since 2001, 27 filters have been placed, indicating a change in practice patterns. Filters were placed for prophylaxis (n = 11) or for therapy in patients with pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis (n = 17). Of 23 temporary filters, only 8 (35%) were removed.
CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons must critically evaluate indications for IVC filter insertion, develop standard criteria for placement, and implement protocols to ensure timely removal of temporary IVC filters.