Journal of vascular surgery · 2001
Recurrent thromboembolism in patients with vena cava filters.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Greenfield L J, Proctor M C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patients with venous thromboembolic disease are treated with anticoagulation or vena cava filter placement to prevent pulmonary embolism. A recent report suggested that filter placement may increase the risk of recurrent deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and prompted a review of our experience.
METHODS: Prospectively collected data on 2109 consecutive patients receiving filters were evaluated for recurrent thromboembolism, vena cava occlusion, or venous stasis ulceration. Outcomes were stratified and analyzed according to the use of anticoagulants at the time of insertion and at follow-up. Incidence rates were also compared with reports in the literature.
RESULTS: Of 1191 patients with DVT at filter placement, complete follow-up data at a mean of 9 years were available for 465. Recurrent DVT was found in 12% of the 241 patients who were given anticoagulants and 15% of the 224 who were not (P >.05). We also failed to find a significant association between the use of anticoagulation and the incidence of pulmonary embolism (2%), stasis ulceration (2%), and vena cava occlusion (0.0).
CONCLUSIONS: Recurrent DVT in patients with existing thromboembolic disease is not an unexpected event, which, in our experience, is not associated with anticoagulant or filter use. Anticoagulation should be used when possible to treat existing DVT to reduce thrombus progression and potentially to reduce subsequent complications but does not seem to reduce the rate of recurrent DVT. Rates of recurrent thromboembolism were consistently less than the 20% to 50% reported in the literature.
METHODS: Prospectively collected data on 2109 consecutive patients receiving filters were evaluated for recurrent thromboembolism, vena cava occlusion, or venous stasis ulceration. Outcomes were stratified and analyzed according to the use of anticoagulants at the time of insertion and at follow-up. Incidence rates were also compared with reports in the literature.
RESULTS: Of 1191 patients with DVT at filter placement, complete follow-up data at a mean of 9 years were available for 465. Recurrent DVT was found in 12% of the 241 patients who were given anticoagulants and 15% of the 224 who were not (P >.05). We also failed to find a significant association between the use of anticoagulation and the incidence of pulmonary embolism (2%), stasis ulceration (2%), and vena cava occlusion (0.0).
CONCLUSIONS: Recurrent DVT in patients with existing thromboembolic disease is not an unexpected event, which, in our experience, is not associated with anticoagulant or filter use. Anticoagulation should be used when possible to treat existing DVT to reduce thrombus progression and potentially to reduce subsequent complications but does not seem to reduce the rate of recurrent DVT. Rates of recurrent thromboembolism were consistently less than the 20% to 50% reported in the literature.