ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024
Efficacy and safety of a novel vena cava filter on pulmonary embolism prophylaxis: a prospective, multicenter, randomized, parallel, positive-controlled, noninferiority clinical trial.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There are different types of vena cava filter (VCF) available in clinical practice. However, limited data exist to determine whether one type is superior to another, and no single VCF is universally recommended in clinical guidelines. The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of a novel VCF, Octoparms, for the prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE) and to compare it with the Celect filter. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel, positive-controlled, noninferiority trial was conducted in 10 centers across 6 provinces in China from October 2017 to March 2019. Patients who had confirmed lower extremity deep vein thrombosis or PE or who were at risk of PE with a clinical indication for VCF placement due to contraindication to or failure of anticoagulant therapy were included in the trial. The sample size for this trial was based on the assumption that the clinical success rate would be 95% and the noninferiority margin would be 10% for both filters. Each patient underwent baseline testing and was randomized using a web-based central system. Any additional interventions or standard treatments patients received along with the VCF placement were recorded. The primary endpoint was the overall clinical success rate, including technical and clinical success of filter placement and retrieval. The secondary endpoint was the safety of filter placement and retrieval, encompassing procedure-related and filter-related complications. Results: A total of 188 patients were included and were divided into two groups: the Octoparms group (n=94) and the Celect group (n=94). Baseline characteristics and demographics were comparable between the two groups (P>0.05). Technical and clinical success rates for filter placement were achieved in 100% (188/188) of patients. The median dwelling time was 12.0 days (range, 4-190 days). Ten VCFs were left Conclusions: The Octoparms filter exhibited a high rate of clinical success and a low rate of complications during placement and retrieval, demonstrating noninferiority to the Celect filter.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.