MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2567742712 · doi:10.1182/blood.v124.21.685.685

Prospective Study of an Inferior Vena Cava Filter Management Pathway in a Tertiary Care and Trauma Centre

2014· article· en· W2567742712 sur OpenAlexaff
Erica A. Peterson, Paul R. Yenson, Jacobus C. Kritzinger, Lauren J. Lee, Jay Chi, David Liu, Agnes Lee

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Établissements canadiensVancouver Coastal HealthVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInferior vena cavaInferior vena cava filterProspective cohort studyThrombosisMedical recordDeep veinFilter (signal processing)SurgeryVenous thrombosis

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: In our institution, a retrospective analysis of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter usage demonstrated attempted removal in only 60% of patients. We performed a prospective cohort study to determine if an IVC filter management program (IVCFP) will improve retrieval rates. Methods: Consecutive patients receiving a retrievable IVC filter were approached for study enrollment within 48 hours of placement. Consenting patients received a visible “IVC Filter Identification Wristband” and pre-printed orders were placed in each patient's chart indicating that the wristband can only be removed by physician order if: 1) the filter has been retrieved; 2) a decision to make the filter permanent has been discussed and agreed upon with the patient; or 3) the patient has been referred to the Thrombosis Clinic for filter follow-up after hospital discharge. Educational pamphlets and Thrombosis Clinic referral information were provided to the patient and care team. All patients were followed up to time of hospital discharge and to the end of the study if the filter was still in situ. Baseline demographics, dates of filter insertion and retrieval, and data on filter indication, documentation of a follow-up plan, reasons for non-retrieval, and all-cause mortality were extracted from electronic and paper medical records using standard forms. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent attempted filter retrieval. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who had a successful retrieval and documentation of a filter management plan. Results were compared with a historical cohort of 275 patients who had filters placed between Jan 2007 and Dec 2010. Group characteristics were compared using 2-sided t-tests for continuous variables and Chi-squared analysis for categorical variables. Results: Between Nov 2011 and Dec 2013, 92 of 111 eligible patients consented to participate. Mean age was 57.3 years and 67.4% were male. Compared to historical patients, IVCFP patients were more likely to be male (64.7% vs. 54.5%; p=0.03), less likely to have a prior history of venous thromboembolism (7.6% vs. 18.5%; p=0.01) and more likely to have received a filter for an acute VTE with contraindication to anticoagulation (76.1% vs. 72.4%; p=0.03) (see Table). At the end of study in June 2014, total length of follow-up for filter retrieval was 14,823 patient-days (median 48.5; range 4-956). No patient was lost to follow-up. Compared to historical data, the IVCFP significantly improved the proportion of patients with attempted retrieval (73/92 [79.3%] vs. 165/275 [60.0%]; p=0.001), documentation of an IVC filter management plan (91.3% vs. 73.8%; p<0.001) and successful retrieval (72.8% vs. 53.1%; p=0.001). Two patients in the IVCFP cohort and 28 historical controls did not have an attempted retrieval despite no clear reason for the filter to remain in situ permanently (2% vs. 10%; p=0.01). Of the 25 patients discharged with a filter in-situ, 20 were referred to our Thrombosis Clinic and 17 had a retrieval attempt post-discharge. Conclusions: Implementation of an IVCFP – consisting of a patient identification wristband, educational materials and referral for outpatient follow-up – was associated with significant increases in attempted filter retrieval and successful filter retrieval. The IVCFP represents an effective and low cost strategy to improve the follow-up and outcomes of patients receiving retrievable IVC filters. Table Historical Cohort N=275 Prospective Cohort N=92 P value Thrombotic risk factors, n (%) Acute VTE 213 (77.5) 78 (84.8) NS Prior VTE 51 (18.5) 7 (7.6) 0.01 Cancer 97 (35.3) 34 (37.0) NS Trauma 63 (22.9) 22 (23.9) NS Indications for filter insertion, n (%) Contraindication to AC 199 (72.4) 70 (76.1) 0.03 High risk for PE 31 (11.3) 10 (10.9) NS Primary prophylaxis 41 (14.9) 11 (12.0) NS Other 4 (1.5) 1 (1.1) NS Filter removal attempted, n (%) 165 (60.0) 73 (73.9) 0.001 Filter removal successful, n (%) 146 (53.1) 67 (72.8) 0.001 Documentation of a filter management plan, n (%) 203 (73.8) 84 (91.3) <0.001 Reasons for non-retrieval, n (%) Death in hospital/limited life expectancy 41 (14.9) 9 (9.8) NS Filter made permanent 22 (8.0) 4 (4.3) NS Persistent contraindication to AC 10 (3.9) 3 (3.3) NS High risk of PE despite AC 5 (1.8) 1 (1.1) NS Lost to follow-up 4 (1.5) 0 (0.0) NS Unknown 28 (10.2) 2 (2.2) 0.01 VTE, venous thromboembolism; PE, pulmonary embolism, NS, non-significant, AC, anticoagulation. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,013
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,025

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,006
Tête enseignante GPT0,233
Écart entre enseignants0,226 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→Travaux en français237 207→