Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAEGTRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Barginear, M. F.
Right arrow Articles by Budman, D.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Barginear, M. F.
Right arrow Articles by Budman, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
First published on April 1, 2008
Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis 2008, doi:10.1177/1076029608315165
© 2008 SAGE Publications

Article

Need for Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Cancer Patients: A Surrogate Marker for Poor Outcome

Myra F. Barginear*, Meredith Lukin, Martin Lesser, Iuliani Shapira, Thomas Bradley, Marianna Strakhan, and Daniel Budman

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: m_barginear{at}hotmail.com.


  Abstract
Background. Cancer patients have an increased incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are used extensively in the US, and more than 40 000 are inserted annually. The impact on survival of cancer patients receiving IVC filters has not been studied. Methods. A retrospective study examined 206 consecutive cancer patients with VTE to compare the effects of IVC filter placement with anticoagulation (AC) therapy on overall survival (OS), as measured from the time of VTE. Patients were classified into 3 treatment groups: AC (n = 62), IVC filter (77), or combination IVC filter + AC (67). Results. Treatment groups did not differ with respect to age, sex, or albumin levels. Median OS was significantly greater in patients treated with AC (13 months) compared with those treated with IVC filters (2 months) or IVC + AC (3.25 months; P < .0002). IVC patients were 1.9 times more at risk of death than AC only (hazard ratio = .528; 95% confidence interval = .374 to .745). Multivariate analysis revealed that performance status and type of thrombus were not confounders and had no effect on OS. Conclusion. The need for the insertion of an IVC filter projected markedly reduced survival. Patients requiring an IVC filter rather than AC as initial therapy face a 2-fold increase in risk of death. Whether or not this therapeutic procedure has a positive impact on outcome in cancer patients is uncertain. Complications resulting from thrombosis were also analyzed in this cohort. A prospective randomized trial at our institution is addressing this issue.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?