Understanding Those Who Actually Insert Inferior Vena Cava Filters

To The Editor:

As an interventional radiologist who specializes in acute and chronic deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), superficial venous disease, and complex filter removal, I applaud Joseph M. Stavas, MD, and Anita Rajasekhar, MD, for discussing a topic that is not well understood by many physicians, including those who actually insert inferior vena cava (IVC) filters (“Drawing First Blood: Should IVC Filters Still Be Inserted into Thrombosis Management Guidelines?” December 2015).

Since the introduction of the first Mobin–Uddin IVC filter in 19671, the concept of a device that could capture and prevent large, potentially fatal DVT from traveling to the lungs made sense – at least in theory. Even with the advent of retrievable IVC filters and the knowledge that we have gained about filters in the past 10 years, the IVC filter still makes sense from a very simple perspective.

Drs. Stavas and Rajasekhar point out that there are discrepancies between the various societal guidelines, some of which are broader in their indications for filter placement than others. From my perspective, there are only two absolute indications for an IVC filter:

  1. A patient with acute proximal DVT that cannot be anticoagulated.
  2. A patient with recurrent DVT/pulmonary embolism (PE) despite being therapeutically anticoagulated.

There are myriad other relative indications for IVC filters. While there are no data to support these indications, there is something else much more powerful. That something is fear.

Whether or not we physicians admit it, fear is a very real driver for many of us who practice medicine in both the private practice and academic sectors. Fears such as “What if I don’t place a filter and this patient dies of a PE?” or “What if the patient has a bad outcome and I get sued?” or “I know this patient has a weak heart and the smallest clot could tip them over the edge …” run rampant in our minds. While the latter fear was addressed by the PREPIC 2 trial2, the vast majority of these fears are often the drivers for so many unnecessary filter placements.

As is true of any other physician, I too am often faced with clinical scenarios in which I am asked to place an IVC filter in a patient who has only a relative indication for a filter. Most of the time I find that, with a little education, I can convince the referring physician or service of why a filter is not indicated.

Or can I?

While I am uncertain of what happens after I hang up the phone, I do know that my evidence-based logic sometimes goes unheeded and is no match for the power of fear. For if one specialty attempts to practice evidence-based medicine in regard to IVC filter placement, there is always another specialty that is more than willing to place the filter whether it be for economic reasons, lack of knowledge of the potential risks, or a perception that they are truly helping the patient.

So, what can we do about fear? Knowledge is the only real guardian of fear. As physicians, we must be united in our message to patients and other physicians about the benefits and risks of these devices. We should not be fearful of educating our colleagues – the majority of whom are truly concerned about their patient’s well-being – about the current evidence on IVC filters. There is no doubt that further studies are needed to help answer these questions. In the meantime, with studies showing filter retrieval rates ranging from a paltry 3.7 percent to a less than stellar 40 percent3, institutions that place IVC filters should take it upon themselves to develop their own IVC filter retrieval program that tracks each and every filter placed within the institution and works closely with the patient’s primary medical doctor to monitor the patient for filter removal when there is no further clinical indication for the filter. While there will always be patients lost to follow-up, this kind of monitoring program is a step toward reducing future complications and the downstream costs that Drs. Stavas and Rajasekhar mentioned.

Finally, the PRESERVE trial, which is jointly sponsored by the Society of Interventional Radiology and the Society of Vascular Surgery and supported by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is the first large-scale, multi-specialty, prospective trial that aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of IVC filters and the long term follow-up. The trial will help us define the true role and indications for IVC filters and be a major step in answering the question, “Do IVC filters still have a role in managing thrombosis?”

—Deepak Sudheendra, MD, RPVI
Assistant Professor of Clinical Radiology & Surgery
Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania – Perelman School of Medicine


  1. Mobin-Uddin K, Smith PE, Martinez LO, et al. A vena caval filter for the prevention of pulmonary embolus. Surg Forum. 1967;18:209-11.
  2. Mismetti P, Laporte S, Pellerin O, et al. Effect of a retrievable inferior vena cava filter plus anticoagulation vs anticoagulation alone on risk of recurrent pulmonary embolism: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;313:1627-35.
  3. Kumar V, Slovut D. Vena cava filters: too often, too many, or just right? Vascular Dis Mgmt. 2014;11:E114-25.

Have a comment about an article? Let us know what you think; we welcome your feedback. Email the editor at [email protected].