Change of Practice Patterns and Outcomes of Vena Cava Filters in Korean Patients: Multicenter, Retrospective Analysis
Authors: Kim Sung Hyun , Choi Jimin , Kim Yeo-Kyeoung , Jang Moon Ju , Yhim Ho-Young , Bang Soo-Mee , Choi Won-Il , Oh Doyeun 
Published: October 2019

Abstract
Abstract 5247

Background:
Vena cava filters (VCF) has been used as a method to prevent pulmonary embolism (PE). The indication for VCF in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) according to the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines has been changed to recommend that VCF is only indicated in case of contraindication to anticoagulation. Also, there is very limited data describing the long-term effectiveness and safety of these devices if they are not removed. There is no data for VCF in Korea. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the change of practice patterns of VCF according to the change of the ACCP guidelines and the outcomes of VCF.

Patients and Method:
The data from patients who had the placement of VCF from Jan 2001 to Mar 2010 was collected from 6 academic institutes in Korea, retrospectively. We analyzed the patients grouped into 3 groups according to ACCP guidelines published year. These are -2004 group, 2005–2008 group, and 2009- group.

Results:
All 460 cases were collected and analyzed. Permanent and retrievable filter was 109 (24%) and 351 (76%), respectively. 49% of retrievable filters was attempted to remove and 88% removal success rate was showed. The patient's number is 79 in -2004 group (17%), 254 in 2005–2008 group (55%), and 127 in 2009- group (28%), respectively. The number of patients in indications of VCF was contraindication to anticoagulation 177 (38%), extensive thrombosis for preventing PE 207 (45%), recurrent VTE during anticoagulation 39 (8%), and others 37 (9%), respectively. The practice pattern in indication for VCF was changed in recurrent VTE during anticoagulation (P=0.012). Any complications after VCF insertion were developed in 107/460 (23%) dung follow-up. Inferior vena cava thrombosis, new DVT after placement of VCF, and new DVT with PE after placement of VCF were developed in 45/460 (10%), 91/460 (20%), and 14/460 (3%), respectively. Median follow-up durations were 49.6 months (range, 0–124.4), 12.3 months (0–67.5) and 6.0 months (0–26.9) for -2004, 2005–2008, and 2009- group, respectively. Vena cava thrombosis was significantly decreased in 2009- group (P=0.022). 75% thrombosis-free time was 3.7 months, 13.0 months, and not estimable in -2004, 2005–2008, and 2009- group, respectively (P=0.10).

Conclusion:
This is first report on VCF in Korea. The practice for indication of VCF insertion in patients with VTE was still out of boundaries from the ACCP guidelines in Korea. Complications after VCF insertion was decreased as time went by. The more follow-up durations was needed to evaluate the development of complication or thrombosis after VCF insertion in 2005–2008 group and 2009- group. Prospective randomized study is needed in Korea to confirm that VCF insertion plus anticoagulation will truly decrease the development of PE than standard anticoagulation.

Disclosures:
No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.