Vena Cava Filters: Let’s Not be “Blinded by Science”

W. Flinn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0885066602250361

2003-03-01

Journal of Intensive Care Medicine

Abstract:The expansion of less invasive, catheter-based endovascular procedures combined with the simplification and miniaturization of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters and their delivery systems has irrevocably altered the procedure of vena cava interruption. What once required a laparotomy for caval “clipping” may now be a 10-minute, percutaneous filter insertion using ultrasound guidance at the bedside. Such dramatic changes make the current, liberalized use of these devices (particularly among the critically ill or injured) understandable. However, any rapidly evolving intervention should be regularly scrutinized, and Dr Streiff’s monograph provides a studious and extensively referenced review of the modern practice of IVC filter use. Dr Streiff’s rigorous review of almost 250 reports leads the reader to conclude that we should not use IVC filters as often as we do. Throughout the manuscript, we are reminded that much of the available data regarding IVC filters is scientifically unreliable. Even the most valid prospective comparison of IVC filters to anticoagulant therapy [1] excluded many complex cases and reported primary endpoints of thrombotic complications that were not controlled for the use of antithrombotic therapy (which may be acceptable since we do not really even have Class A scientific evidence that heparin is effective treatment for deep vein thrombosis [DVT]). Realistically, validation (by Dr Streiff’s scientific standards) for IVC filter use in many clinical situations will never be forthcoming, just as we will never have a scientifically rigorous study proving heparin prevents pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with acute DVT. Some of our business just has to be intuitive. Pulmonary embolism remains one of the most frequent causes of death among adult hospitalized patients, and PE may be the single most preventable cause of death among high-risk patient groups. It is most devastating when PE is fatal in a person who would be expected to otherwise recover from his or her illness, surgery, or traumatic injury, and these deaths continue despite the widespread use of mechanical and pharmacologic prophylaxis, even low molecular weight heparins. We cannot prevent all deaths, and we cannot prevent all PEs, but what we can do is try to prevent fatal PE. If the prevention of fatal pulmonary embolism is our singular endpoint, then we can accomplish this goal in one of the following ways: