可回收下腔静脉过滤器治疗重大创伤后的静脉血栓形成、血栓栓塞和机械并发症。

Kwok M. Ho, Kwok M. Ho, J. A. Tan, Maxine Burrell, Sudhakar Rao, P. Misur
{"title":"可回收下腔静脉过滤器治疗重大创伤后的静脉血栓形成、血栓栓塞和机械并发症。","authors":"Kwok M. Ho, Kwok M. Ho, J. A. Tan, Maxine Burrell, Sudhakar Rao, P. Misur","doi":"10.1097/SA.0000000000000272","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nThe ideal thromboprophylaxis in patients at risk of bleeding is uncertain. This retrospective cohort study assessed the risk factors for complications after using retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters for primary or secondary thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients after major trauma.\n\n\nMETHODS\nUsing data from radiology, trauma and death registries, the incidence of and risk factors for subsequent deep venous thrombosis (DVT), venous thromboembolism (VTE), and mechanical complications related to retrievable IVC filters in patients, admitted between 2007 and 2012, were assessed in a single trauma centre.\n\n\nRESULTS\nOf the 2940 major trauma patients admitted during the study period, a retrievable IVC filter was used in 223 patients (7.6%). Thirty-six patients (16%) developed DVT or VTE subsequent to placement of IVC filters (median 20 days, interquartile range 9-33), including 27 with lower limb (DVT), 8 upper limb DVT, and 4 pulmonary embolism. A high Injury Severity Score, tibial/fibular fractures, and a delay in initiating pharmacological thromboprophylaxis after insertion of the filters (14 vs 7 days, P=0.001) were significant risk factors. Thirty patients were lost to follow-up (13%) and their filters were not retrieved. Mechanical complications-including filters adherent to the wall of IVC (4.9%), IVC thrombus (4.0%), and displaced or tilted filters (2.2%)-were common when the filters were left in situ for >50 days.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nA delay in initiating pharmacological thromboprophylaxis or filter removal were associated with an increased risk of subsequent DVT, VTE, and mechanical complications of retrievable IVC filters in patients after major trauma.","PeriodicalId":22104,"journal":{"name":"Survey of Anesthesiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"29","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Venous thrombotic, thromboembolic, and mechanical complications after retrievable inferior vena cava filters for major trauma.\",\"authors\":\"Kwok M. Ho, Kwok M. Ho, J. A. Tan, Maxine Burrell, Sudhakar Rao, P. Misur\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SA.0000000000000272\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\nThe ideal thromboprophylaxis in patients at risk of bleeding is uncertain. This retrospective cohort study assessed the risk factors for complications after using retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters for primary or secondary thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients after major trauma.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nUsing data from radiology, trauma and death registries, the incidence of and risk factors for subsequent deep venous thrombosis (DVT), venous thromboembolism (VTE), and mechanical complications related to retrievable IVC filters in patients, admitted between 2007 and 2012, were assessed in a single trauma centre.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nOf the 2940 major trauma patients admitted during the study period, a retrievable IVC filter was used in 223 patients (7.6%). Thirty-six patients (16%) developed DVT or VTE subsequent to placement of IVC filters (median 20 days, interquartile range 9-33), including 27 with lower limb (DVT), 8 upper limb DVT, and 4 pulmonary embolism. A high Injury Severity Score, tibial/fibular fractures, and a delay in initiating pharmacological thromboprophylaxis after insertion of the filters (14 vs 7 days, P=0.001) were significant risk factors. Thirty patients were lost to follow-up (13%) and their filters were not retrieved. Mechanical complications-including filters adherent to the wall of IVC (4.9%), IVC thrombus (4.0%), and displaced or tilted filters (2.2%)-were common when the filters were left in situ for >50 days.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSIONS\\nA delay in initiating pharmacological thromboprophylaxis or filter removal were associated with an increased risk of subsequent DVT, VTE, and mechanical complications of retrievable IVC filters in patients after major trauma.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22104,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Survey of Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"29\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Survey of Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SA.0000000000000272\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Survey of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SA.0000000000000272","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 29

摘要

背景:对于有出血风险的患者,理想的血栓预防是不确定的。这项回顾性队列研究评估了使用可回收下腔静脉(IVC)过滤器预防重大创伤后患者原发性或继发性血栓栓塞后并发症的危险因素。方法利用放射学、创伤和死亡登记处的数据,对2007年至2012年住院的患者的深静脉血栓形成(DVT)、静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)和与可回收IVC过滤器相关的机械并发症的发生率和危险因素进行评估。结果在研究期间入院的2940例重大外伤患者中,223例(7.6%)使用可回收的下腔静脉滤器。36例(16%)患者在放置IVC过滤器后发生DVT或VTE(中位20天,四分位数范围9-33),其中27例下肢DVT, 8例上肢DVT, 4例肺栓塞。较高的损伤严重程度评分、胫骨/腓骨骨折以及在植入滤过器后延迟启动药物血栓预防(14天vs 7天,P=0.001)是显著的危险因素。30例患者失访(13%),滤镜未取出。机械并发症-包括过滤器粘附在下腔静脉壁上(4.9%),下腔静脉血栓(4.0%)和移位或倾斜过滤器(2.2%)-当过滤器留在原位50天时很常见。结论:延迟启动药物血栓预防或去除滤过器与严重创伤后患者发生DVT、VTE和可回收的IVC滤过器机械并发症的风险增加有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Venous thrombotic, thromboembolic, and mechanical complications after retrievable inferior vena cava filters for major trauma.
BACKGROUND The ideal thromboprophylaxis in patients at risk of bleeding is uncertain. This retrospective cohort study assessed the risk factors for complications after using retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters for primary or secondary thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients after major trauma. METHODS Using data from radiology, trauma and death registries, the incidence of and risk factors for subsequent deep venous thrombosis (DVT), venous thromboembolism (VTE), and mechanical complications related to retrievable IVC filters in patients, admitted between 2007 and 2012, were assessed in a single trauma centre. RESULTS Of the 2940 major trauma patients admitted during the study period, a retrievable IVC filter was used in 223 patients (7.6%). Thirty-six patients (16%) developed DVT or VTE subsequent to placement of IVC filters (median 20 days, interquartile range 9-33), including 27 with lower limb (DVT), 8 upper limb DVT, and 4 pulmonary embolism. A high Injury Severity Score, tibial/fibular fractures, and a delay in initiating pharmacological thromboprophylaxis after insertion of the filters (14 vs 7 days, P=0.001) were significant risk factors. Thirty patients were lost to follow-up (13%) and their filters were not retrieved. Mechanical complications-including filters adherent to the wall of IVC (4.9%), IVC thrombus (4.0%), and displaced or tilted filters (2.2%)-were common when the filters were left in situ for >50 days. CONCLUSIONS A delay in initiating pharmacological thromboprophylaxis or filter removal were associated with an increased risk of subsequent DVT, VTE, and mechanical complications of retrievable IVC filters in patients after major trauma.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Context is king - obstetric anaesthesia management strategies in limited resource settings. Preoperative Administration of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers: Do We Have Enough “VISION” to Stop It? Implementing a Statistical Model for Protamine Titration: Effects on Coagulation in Cardiac Surgical Patients Vasopressin, Norepinephrine, and Vasodilatory Shock After Cardiac Surgery: Another “VASST” Difference? Prospective Double Blind Randomized Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial of the Pectoral Nerves (Pecs) Block Type II
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1