You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 20, Issue 5
  • An IVC filter and anticoagulation for 3 months is unlikely to show a benefit over anticoagulation alone for high-risk patients with acute pulmonary embolism

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Therapeutics/Prevention
Randomised controlled trial
An IVC filter and anticoagulation for 3 months is unlikely to show a benefit over anticoagulation alone for high-risk patients with acute pulmonary embolism
  1. Eric K Hoffer
  1. Department of Radiology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA
  1. Correspondence to : Dr Eric K Hoffer, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Department of Radiology, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH 03755, USA; hoffer{at}hitchcock.org

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2015-110230

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Commentary on: Mismetti P, Laporte S, Pellerin O, et al; PREPIC2 Study Group. Effect of a retrievable inferior vena cava filter plus anticoagulation vs anticoagulation alone on risk of recurrent pulmonary embolism: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2015;313:1627–35.OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

    Context

    Placement of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter to prevent pulmonary embolism (PE) is recommended by multidisciplinary consensus guidelines only when anticoagulation is contraindicated, has resulted in a complication or has failed.1 ,2 Oddly, the only prospective randomised long-term filter efficacy study that demonstrated a reduction in the recurrent PE rate at 8-year follow-up (6.3% vs 15.1%) did so in a setting where both filter …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.