Abstract 37: Measure of Appropriateness in the Placement of Intravenacaval Filters Among Guidelines From Major Medical Societies

• Published in: Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology Vol. 36; no. suppl_1
• Main Authors: Thyagarajan, Braghadheeswar, Patel, Shil, Swergold, Natalie, Alagusundaramoorthy, Sayee Sundar, Verma, Isha, Baker, Thomas, Eng, Margaret
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 01-05-2016
• ISSN: 1079-5642; 1524-4636
• DOI: 10.1161/atvb.36.suppl_1.37

Abstract only
Objective:
With healthcare focusing towards quality based healthcare it has created significant interest among physicians in measuring and defining appropriateness in the treatment of medical conditions. We compared the indications for which the Intravenacaval (IVC) filter was placed in our hospital with the current guidelines by three of the major medical societies the
American Heart Association (AHA), American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and Society for Interventional Radiology (SIR)
to compare the measure of appropriateness in the placement of IVC filters among the guidelines
Methods:
We conducted a retrospective review of all charts with the ICD 9 code for placement of IVC filter from January, 2010 to January, 2015. Each patient chart was reviewed for patient demographics, complications and indications which were compared with the guidelines as defined by
AHA, ACCP and SIR
Results:
During the 5 years, 592 patients underwent the procedure which included 233 men and 359 women who had a mean age of 67.2 +/- 17.4. 75.8% filters were inserted by vascular surgery and 24.2% filters were inserted by interventional radiology. 1.8% of the patients had some form of complication either during insertion or retrieval. On comparing the indications, we found that 35.5%(AHA), 30.9%(ACCP), 35.5%(SIR) were appropriate. While 4.4%(AHA), 4.4%(ACCP), 47.4%(SIR) were relatively appropriate and 60.1%(AHA), 64.7%(ACCP), 17.1%(SIR) were not appropriate. Commonly used indications not defined clearly included prophylaxis for bariatric surgery (14.4%) and high risk for fall (11%). Statistical analysis with the Chi-square test showed there was no statistical difference between AHA and ACCP (p =0.243), while statistical difference was present between AHA and SIR (p <0.001) and ACCP and SIR (p < 0.001)
Conclusion:
This study demonstrates that there are significant differences between the guidelines from major medical societies for the placement of IVC filter which leads to compelling discrepancies amongst physicians in their decision for the placement of IVC filters