Trends in inferior vena cava filter placement by indication in the United States from 2005 to 2014

Mohammed J. Saeed; Tyson E. Turner; David L. Brown

doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.5960

Trends in inferior vena cava filter placement by indication in the United States from 2005 to 2014

Mohammed J. Saeed, Tyson E. Turner, David L. Brown

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter › peer-review

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1861-1862
Number of pages	2
Journal	JAMA Internal Medicine
Volume	177
Issue number	12
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.5960
State	Published - Dec 2017

Access to Document

10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.5960

Cite this

@article{06c28defbc694ad28c0aa3f3d8ef491d,

title = "Trends in inferior vena cava filter placement by indication in the United States from 2005 to 2014",

author = "Saeed, {Mohammed J.} and Turner, {Tyson E.} and Brown, {David L.}",

note = "Funding Information: Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported. Funding/Support: This work was supported in part by Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences grant UL1 TR000448 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, grant R24 HS19455 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and grant KM1CA156708 from the National Cancer Institute. Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. 1. Prasad V, Rho J, Cifu A. The inferior vena cava filter: how could a medical device be so well accepted without any evidence of efficacy? JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(7):493-495. 2. Stein PD, Kayali F, Olson RE. Twenty-one–year trends in the use of inferior vena cava filters. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(14):1541-1545. 3. Moore PS, Andrews JS, Craven TE, et al. Trends in vena caval interruption. J Vasc Surg. 2010;52(1):118-125.e3. 4. Reddy S, Lakhter V, Zack CJ, Zhao H, Chatterjee S, Bashir R. Association between contemporary trends in inferior vena cava filter placement and the 2010 US Food and Drug Administration advisory. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(9):1373-1374. 5. PREPIC Study Group. Eight-year follow-up of patients with permanent vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism: the PREPIC (Prevention du Risque d{\textquoteright}Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) randomized study. Circulation. 2005;112(3):416-422.",

year = "2017",

month = dec,

doi = "10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.5960",

language = "English",

volume = "177",

pages = "1861--1862",

journal = "JAMA Internal Medicine",

issn = "2168-6106",

number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Trends in inferior vena cava filter placement by indication in the United States from 2005 to 2014

AU - Saeed, Mohammed J.

AU - Turner, Tyson E.

AU - Brown, David L.

N1 - Funding Information: Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported. Funding/Support: This work was supported in part by Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences grant UL1 TR000448 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, grant R24 HS19455 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and grant KM1CA156708 from the National Cancer Institute. Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. 1. Prasad V, Rho J, Cifu A. The inferior vena cava filter: how could a medical device be so well accepted without any evidence of efficacy? JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(7):493-495. 2. Stein PD, Kayali F, Olson RE. Twenty-one–year trends in the use of inferior vena cava filters. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(14):1541-1545. 3. Moore PS, Andrews JS, Craven TE, et al. Trends in vena caval interruption. J Vasc Surg. 2010;52(1):118-125.e3. 4. Reddy S, Lakhter V, Zack CJ, Zhao H, Chatterjee S, Bashir R. Association between contemporary trends in inferior vena cava filter placement and the 2010 US Food and Drug Administration advisory. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(9):1373-1374. 5. PREPIC Study Group. Eight-year follow-up of patients with permanent vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism: the PREPIC (Prevention du Risque d’Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) randomized study. Circulation. 2005;112(3):416-422.

PY - 2017/12

Y1 - 2017/12

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85039849238&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.5960

DO - 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.5960

M3 - Letter

C2 - 29114739

AN - SCOPUS:85039849238

SN - 2168-6106

VL - 177

SP - 1861

EP - 1862

JO - JAMA Internal Medicine

JF - JAMA Internal Medicine

IS - 12

ER -

Trends in inferior vena cava filter placement by indication in the United States from 2005 to 2014

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this