Factors impacting follow-up care after placement of temporary inferior vena cava filters

Elsie Gyang, Mohamed Zayed, E. John Harris, Jason T. Lee, Ronald L. Dalman, Matthew Mell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Rates of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval have remained suboptimal, in part because of poor follow-up. The goal of our study was to determine demographic and clinical factors predictive of IVC filter follow-up care in a university hospital setting. Methods: We reviewed 250 consecutive patients who received an IVC filter placement with the intention of subsequent retrieval between March 2009 and October 2010. Patient demographics, clinical factors, and physician specialty were evaluated. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify variables predicting follow-up care. Results: In our cohort, 60.7% of patients received follow-up care; of those, 93% had IVC filter retrieval. Major indications for IVC filter placement were prophylaxis for high risk surgery (53%) and venous thromboembolic event with contraindication and/or failure of anticoagulation (39%). Follow-up care was less likely for patients discharged to acute rehabilitation or skilled nursing facilities (P <.0001), those with central nervous system pathology (eg, cerebral hemorrhage or spinal fracture; P <.0001), and for those who did not receive an IVC filter placement by a vascular surgeon (P <.0001). In a multivariate analysis, discharge home (odds ratio [OR], 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.99-8.2; P <.0001), central nervous system pathology (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22-0.95; P =.04), and IVC filter placement by the vascular surgery service (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 2.3-9.6; P <.0001) remained independent predictors of follow-up care. Trauma status and distance of residence did not significantly impact likelihood of patient follow-up. Conclusions: Service-dependent practice paradigms play a critical role in patient follow-up and IVC filter retrieval rates. Nevertheless, specific patient populations are more prone to having poorer rates of follow-up. Such trends should be factored into institutional quality control goals and patient-centered care.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)440-445
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
Volume58
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Vena Cava Filters
Aftercare
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
Blood Vessels
Central Nervous System
Demography
Spinal Fractures
Skilled Nursing Facilities
Pathology
Patient-Centered Care
Cerebral Hemorrhage
Quality Control
Rehabilitation
Multivariate Analysis
Logistic Models
Regression Analysis
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Factors impacting follow-up care after placement of temporary inferior vena cava filters. / Gyang, Elsie; Zayed, Mohamed; Harris, E. John; Lee, Jason T.; Dalman, Ronald L.; Mell, Matthew.

In: Journal of Vascular Surgery, Vol. 58, No. 2, 01.08.2013, p. 440-445.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gyang, Elsie ; Zayed, Mohamed ; Harris, E. John ; Lee, Jason T. ; Dalman, Ronald L. ; Mell, Matthew. / Factors impacting follow-up care after placement of temporary inferior vena cava filters. In: Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2013 ; Vol. 58, No. 2. pp. 440-445.
@article{3692c9008bb244629c4b224d103ceb01,
title = "Factors impacting follow-up care after placement of temporary inferior vena cava filters",
abstract = "Objective: Rates of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval have remained suboptimal, in part because of poor follow-up. The goal of our study was to determine demographic and clinical factors predictive of IVC filter follow-up care in a university hospital setting. Methods: We reviewed 250 consecutive patients who received an IVC filter placement with the intention of subsequent retrieval between March 2009 and October 2010. Patient demographics, clinical factors, and physician specialty were evaluated. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify variables predicting follow-up care. Results: In our cohort, 60.7{\%} of patients received follow-up care; of those, 93{\%} had IVC filter retrieval. Major indications for IVC filter placement were prophylaxis for high risk surgery (53{\%}) and venous thromboembolic event with contraindication and/or failure of anticoagulation (39{\%}). Follow-up care was less likely for patients discharged to acute rehabilitation or skilled nursing facilities (P <.0001), those with central nervous system pathology (eg, cerebral hemorrhage or spinal fracture; P <.0001), and for those who did not receive an IVC filter placement by a vascular surgeon (P <.0001). In a multivariate analysis, discharge home (odds ratio [OR], 4.0; 95{\%} confidence interval [CI], 1.99-8.2; P <.0001), central nervous system pathology (OR, 0.46; 95{\%} CI, 0.22-0.95; P =.04), and IVC filter placement by the vascular surgery service (OR, 4.7; 95{\%} CI, 2.3-9.6; P <.0001) remained independent predictors of follow-up care. Trauma status and distance of residence did not significantly impact likelihood of patient follow-up. Conclusions: Service-dependent practice paradigms play a critical role in patient follow-up and IVC filter retrieval rates. Nevertheless, specific patient populations are more prone to having poorer rates of follow-up. Such trends should be factored into institutional quality control goals and patient-centered care.",
author = "Elsie Gyang and Mohamed Zayed and Harris, {E. John} and Lee, {Jason T.} and Dalman, {Ronald L.} and Matthew Mell",
year = "2013",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jvs.2012.12.085",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "58",
pages = "440--445",
journal = "Journal of Vascular Surgery",
issn = "0741-5214",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Factors impacting follow-up care after placement of temporary inferior vena cava filters

AU - Gyang, Elsie

AU - Zayed, Mohamed

AU - Harris, E. John

AU - Lee, Jason T.

AU - Dalman, Ronald L.

AU - Mell, Matthew

PY - 2013/8/1

Y1 - 2013/8/1

N2 - Objective: Rates of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval have remained suboptimal, in part because of poor follow-up. The goal of our study was to determine demographic and clinical factors predictive of IVC filter follow-up care in a university hospital setting. Methods: We reviewed 250 consecutive patients who received an IVC filter placement with the intention of subsequent retrieval between March 2009 and October 2010. Patient demographics, clinical factors, and physician specialty were evaluated. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify variables predicting follow-up care. Results: In our cohort, 60.7% of patients received follow-up care; of those, 93% had IVC filter retrieval. Major indications for IVC filter placement were prophylaxis for high risk surgery (53%) and venous thromboembolic event with contraindication and/or failure of anticoagulation (39%). Follow-up care was less likely for patients discharged to acute rehabilitation or skilled nursing facilities (P <.0001), those with central nervous system pathology (eg, cerebral hemorrhage or spinal fracture; P <.0001), and for those who did not receive an IVC filter placement by a vascular surgeon (P <.0001). In a multivariate analysis, discharge home (odds ratio [OR], 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.99-8.2; P <.0001), central nervous system pathology (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22-0.95; P =.04), and IVC filter placement by the vascular surgery service (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 2.3-9.6; P <.0001) remained independent predictors of follow-up care. Trauma status and distance of residence did not significantly impact likelihood of patient follow-up. Conclusions: Service-dependent practice paradigms play a critical role in patient follow-up and IVC filter retrieval rates. Nevertheless, specific patient populations are more prone to having poorer rates of follow-up. Such trends should be factored into institutional quality control goals and patient-centered care.

AB - Objective: Rates of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval have remained suboptimal, in part because of poor follow-up. The goal of our study was to determine demographic and clinical factors predictive of IVC filter follow-up care in a university hospital setting. Methods: We reviewed 250 consecutive patients who received an IVC filter placement with the intention of subsequent retrieval between March 2009 and October 2010. Patient demographics, clinical factors, and physician specialty were evaluated. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify variables predicting follow-up care. Results: In our cohort, 60.7% of patients received follow-up care; of those, 93% had IVC filter retrieval. Major indications for IVC filter placement were prophylaxis for high risk surgery (53%) and venous thromboembolic event with contraindication and/or failure of anticoagulation (39%). Follow-up care was less likely for patients discharged to acute rehabilitation or skilled nursing facilities (P <.0001), those with central nervous system pathology (eg, cerebral hemorrhage or spinal fracture; P <.0001), and for those who did not receive an IVC filter placement by a vascular surgeon (P <.0001). In a multivariate analysis, discharge home (odds ratio [OR], 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.99-8.2; P <.0001), central nervous system pathology (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22-0.95; P =.04), and IVC filter placement by the vascular surgery service (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 2.3-9.6; P <.0001) remained independent predictors of follow-up care. Trauma status and distance of residence did not significantly impact likelihood of patient follow-up. Conclusions: Service-dependent practice paradigms play a critical role in patient follow-up and IVC filter retrieval rates. Nevertheless, specific patient populations are more prone to having poorer rates of follow-up. Such trends should be factored into institutional quality control goals and patient-centered care.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84880816788&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84880816788&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jvs.2012.12.085

DO - 10.1016/j.jvs.2012.12.085

M3 - Article

C2 - 23588109

AN - SCOPUS:84880816788

VL - 58

SP - 440

EP - 445

JO - Journal of Vascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Vascular Surgery

SN - 0741-5214

IS - 2

ER -