title: Inferior vena cava filters in the United States: less is more.
abstract: Despite the widespread use of Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, there is no quality evidence to demonstrate their efficacy for routine use, nor there is a consensus on their appropriate indications among major medical societies. The introduction of retrievable filters led to further increase in the utilization of these devices. However, several studies have shown that retrievable filters are rarely retrieved. The implant rates of IVC filters are many folds higher in the United States than in Europe, yet the retrieval rates are much lower. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recently issued a safety alert advocating for consideration of filter retrieval when the protection offered by the filter is no longer needed. The controversies surrounding IVC filter placement and retrieval, however, will likely to continue in the absence of good evidence on their efficacy and side effects. Time has come for initiatives to conduct well designed trials based on agreed-upon criteria to settle this debate.
authors.affiliation: Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States. Electronic address: adnanalkhouli@gmail.com.
authors.forename: Mohamad
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Alkhouli
authors.affiliation: Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
authors.forename: Riyaz
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Bashir
mesh_terms: D018795:Device Approval; D020878:Device Removal / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D011655:Pulmonary Embolism / Q000517:prevention & control; D014481:United States / Q000453:epidemiology; D016306:Vena Cava Filters / Q000009:adverse effects*; D054556:Venous Thromboembolism / Q000517:prevention & control
keywords: Deep venous thrombosis; Filter retrieval; Inferior vena cava filter; Practice disparity