Inferior vena cava filter placement in the gynecologic oncology patient: A 15-year institutional experience

Summer B. Dewdney, Teri Benn, B. J. Rimel, Feng Gao, Nael Saad, Suresh Vedantham, David G. Mutch, Israel Zighelboim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

11 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: Venous thrombosis is a frequent complication of gynecologic cancer. Data regarding the use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in this population is limited. The aim of this study was to review our experience with gynecologic oncology patients who received an IVC filter, specifically to evaluate indications for filter placement and survival outcomes. Methods: This was a retrospective, single-institution study of patients who had an IVC filter placed after a histologically confirmed gynecologic malignancy. Patients were identified from a prospectively collected interventional radiology (IR) database. Clinicopathologic characteristics, procedure details, and outcome data were obtained from outpatient and inpatient medical records. Survival after IVC filter placement was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared by log-rank test. Results: A total of 128 patients were identified and 103 were found to be eligible for analysis. Most patients had ovarian cancer (52%), followed by cervical cancer (25%) and endometrial cancer (21%). Two-thirds had advanced stage disease (III/IV). The procedure complication rate was 2%. Median survival after IVC filter placement was 7.8 months (95% CI, 4.1-13.6). The most common indication for IVC filter placement was contraindication to anticoagulation secondary to hemorrhage (44%), followed by perioperative indications (30%) and failed anticoagulation (14%). There was no difference in survival by IVC filter placement indication (p = 0.18). The majority of the IVC filters placed were permanent (90.5%) and in an infrarenal position (95.8%). There was no difference in survival according to specific thromboembolic event (DVT vs. PE vs. both). Patients able to receive anticoagulation after IVC filter placement had improved survival (HR 0.45, 95%CI 0.45-0.27, p = 0.003). Conclusions: We present the largest series of gynecologic oncology patients treated with IVC filters. Long-term survival after IVC filter placement is uncommon. Patients who receive anticoagulation after IVC filter placement have an improved survival over those who do not receive anticoagulation; this difference in survival may be secondary to worsening disease causing contraindications to anticoagulation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)344-346
Number of pages3
JournalGynecologic oncology
Volume121
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2011

Keywords

  • Anticoagulation
  • Gynecologic cancer
  • Inferior vena cava filter

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Inferior vena cava filter placement in the gynecologic oncology patient: A 15-year institutional experience'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this