Outcomes of patients requiring insertion of an inferior vena cava filter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data regarding inferior vena cava (IVC) filter use and complications are scarce. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of IVC filters over a 4-year period at two adult tertiary care hospital sites. A retrospective observational study was conducted of consecutive admitted patients who underwent insertion of an IVC filter between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2010. The main objective of the study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of IVC filters. We identified 338 patients with an attempted filter insertion who were followed for a median 16.3 months. Ninety-one percent of filters inserted were for an appropriate indication. Sixty-eight patients (20% of all patients) had one or more filter-related complication. Despite a median time after filter insertion to start anticoagulation of 2 days (interquartile range 3 days) for prophylactic and 6 days (interquartile range 7 days) for full dose, 38 patients (11% of all patients) had one or more thrombotic complications during follow-up. In a subgroup of patients with complete anticoagulation information available, thrombotic complications occurred in 18, 16, and 8% of patients receiving no, prophylactic, or full dose anticoagulation after IVC filter insertion, respectively (NS; P = 0.13). IVC filter use in our study was associated with a substantial rate of complications including thrombotic complications. This study highlights the need for further research regarding the safety and efficacy of IVC filters and the role for early initiation of anticoagulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".