Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Analysis of a Database

NCT ID: NCT04330170

Last Updated: 2020-04-06

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Total Enrollment

2399 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2016-01-13

Study Completion Date

2020-03-28

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

In this study a retrospective analysis of patients database was performed, who underwent treatment for deep vein thrombosis in tertiary hospital by using inferior vena cava-filters

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

The aim of this research was to assess the cava-filter implantation frequency in a tertiary hospital with venous thromboembolism treatment center.

A retrospective analysis of patient's database was performed, who underwent treatment in the tertiary clinic between 2016 - 2017. In total, 2399 patients with venous thromboembolism were hospitalized, 442 cava-filters were implanted (239 in 2016 and 203 in 2017), which accounted for 18.4% of patients with venous thromboembolism. Removable cava-filters models were used in most cases (98.8%). Contraindications for anticoagulation were reason for cava-filters implantation in 119 (26.9%) cases, and in 184 patients (41.6%) cava-filters were implanted due to the inefficiency of anticoagulation. 38 (8.6%) patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism had pulmonary hypertension of the 2nd to 3rd degree, which caused the implantation of cava-filters .

The occlusion of the inferior vena cava and cava-filters verified in 116 (26.9%) patients after cava-filters implantation, based on repeated ultrasound. The overall mortality rate in the group of patients with venous thromboembolism was 0.25% (6 patients), 5 of them (1.1%) underwent cava-filters implantation. The cause of all lethal outcomes was the progression of the underlying disease. During the next hospitalization 29 (6.5%) of implanted filters were endovascularly removed.

There are 18.4% of patients with venous thromboembolism undergoing cava-filters implantation for various reasons in a tertiary hospital. At the same time, occlusion of the inferior vena cava and cava-filters in the early post implantation period is observed in 26.9%. However, without clear criteria for the differentiation of cava-filters embolism from its thrombosis, we cannot assess whether this was a complication, or if the cava-filters completed its task by preventing pulmonary embolism. Thus, the validity of implanting cava filters question in terms of efficiency and safety remains unanswered, which poses the task for deep study of this problem and thorough analysis of the indications for the cava-filters implantation.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Deep Vein Thrombosis, Pulmonary Embolus

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Observational Model Type

COHORT

Study Time Perspective

RETROSPECTIVE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Anticoagulation therapy contraindicated
* Anticoagulation therapy ineffective
* High pulmonary embolism risk (floating thrombus in proximal location)
* Deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism together with high pulmonary hypertension(\>50 mm.Hg)
Minimum Eligible Age

16 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

91 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Igor Zolotukhin

Professor of Surgery, Pirogov RNRMU, Zolotukhin Igor Anatolievich

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

The Federal Budget-Funded Institution National Medical Surgical Center named after N. I. Pirogov of the Ministry of health of the Russian Federation

Moscow, , Russia

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Russia

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

180

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Forceps vs. Snare IVC Filter Removal
NCT04092192 RECRUITING NA