Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28550629›Full record

ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2017

Retrospective analysis of outcomes following inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement in a managed care population.

Damian Everhart, Jamieson Vaccaro, Karen Worley, Teresa L Rogstad, Mitchel Seleznick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Optimizing the management strategy for inferior vena cava filter.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025
    Article
  2. Colocaval Fistula: A Unique Case Report.Case reports in surgery · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Predictors of retrieval and long-term mortality in patients treated with inferior vena cava filters.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Inferior vena cava filters: use or abuse?Internal and emergency medicine · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Damian EverhartCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Baltimore, MD, USA. damianeverhart@gmail.com.
Jamieson VaccaroComprehensive Health Insights, Humana Inc., 515 West Market Street, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA.
Karen WorleyComprehensive Health Insights, Humana Inc., 515 West Market Street, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA.
Teresa L RogstadHumana Inc., 500 West Main Street, 14th Floor, Louisville, KY, USA.
Mitchel SeleznickCarePlus Health Plans, Humana Inc., 11430 NW 20th Street, Suite 300, Miami, FL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The role of inferior vena cava filter (IVC) filters for prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE) is controversial. This study evaluated outcomes of IVC filter placement in a managed care population. This retrospective cohort study evaluated data for individuals with Humana healthcare coverage 2013-2014. The study population included 435 recipients of prophylactic IVC filters, 4376 recipients of therapeutic filters, and two control groups, each matched to filter recipients. Patients were followed for up to 2 years. Post-index anticoagulant use, mortality, filter removal, device-related complications, and all-cause utilization. Adjusted regression analyses showed a positive association between filter placement and anticoagulant use at 3 months: odds ratio (ORs) 3.403 (95% CI 1.912-6.059), prophylactic; OR, 1.356 (95% CI 1.164-1.58), therapeutic. Filters were removed in 15.67% of prophylactic and 5.69% of therapeutic filter cases. Complication rates were higher with prophylactic procedures than with therapeutic procedures and typically exceeded 2% in the prophylactic group. Each form of filter placement was associated with increases in all-cause hospitalization (regression coefficient 0.295 [95% CI 0.093-0.498], prophylactic; 0.673 [95% CI 0.547-0.798], therapeutic) and readmissions (OR 2.444 [95% CI 1.298-4.602], prophylactic; 2.074 [95% CI 1.644-2.616], therapeutic). IVC filter placement in this managed care population was associated with increased use of anticoagulants and greater healthcare utilization compared to controls, low rates of retrieval, and notable rates of device-related complications, with effects especially pronounced in assessments of prophylactic filters. These findings underscore the need for appropriate use of IVC filters.

Indexed as

Managed Care ProgramsAgedAged, 80 and overAnticoagulantsCase-Control StudiesFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPulmonary EmbolismRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeVena Cava FiltersVena Cava, InferiorAnticoagulantsInferior vena cava filterSurgeryThromboembolismUtilization

Identifiers

PMID28550629
PMCPMC5522518

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.