A Pilot Study on the Randomization of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in High-Risk Trauma Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Placement of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (pIVCFs) for the prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE) in high-risk trauma patients (HRTPs) are widely practiced despite the lack of Level I data supporting this use. We report the 2-year interim analysis of the Filters in Trauma pilot study. METHODS: This is a single institution, prospective randomized controlled pilot feasibility study in a Level I trauma center. HRTPs were identified for pIVCF placement by the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma guidelines. From November 2008 to November 2010, HRTPs were enrolled and randomized to either pIVCF or no pIVCF. All patients received pharmacologic prophylaxis when safe. Primary outcomes included feasibility objectives and secondary outcomes were incidence of PE, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and death. RESULTS: Thirty-four of 38 enrolled patients were eligible for analysis. The baseline sociodemographic characteristics were balanced between the both groups. Results of the feasibility objectives included: time from admission to enrollment (mean, 47.4 hours ± 22.0 hours), time from enrollment to randomization (mean, 4.8 hours ± 9.1 hours), time from randomization to IVCF placement (mean, 16.9 hours ± 9.2 hours), adherence to weekly compression ultrasound within first month (IVCF group = 44.4%; non-IVCF group = 62.5%), and 1-month clinical follow-up (IVCF group = 83.3%; non-IVCF group = 100%). At 6-month follow-up, one PE in the nonfilter group and one DVT in the filter group had occurred. One non-PE-related death occurred in the filter group. Barriers to enrollment included inability to obtain informed consent due to patient refusal or no next of kin identified and delayed notification of eligibility status. CONCLUSION: Our pilot study demonstrates for the first time that a randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of pIVCFs in trauma patients is feasible. This pilot data will be used to inform the design of a multicenter randomized controlled trial to determine the incidence of PE and DVT in HRTPs receiving pIVCFs versus no pIVCF.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".