Abstract Guidelines recommend placement of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) in patients with acute proximal lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and a contraindication to anticoagulation. IVCF placement during pregnancy or immediately postpartum presents technical challenges and is not extensively described in the existing literature. This study aimed to describe the use of IVCFs in the obstetric population along with outcomes related to filter placement. Retrospective chart review of all patients at Mayo Clinic from 2001 to 2020 with an IVCF at the time of conception or who underwent placement during pregnancy/postpartum. About 24 pregnancies in 23 women (mean age 26.3 years, range 18–41) were included: 5 (21%) with IVCF placement prior to pregnancy, 7 (29%) during pregnancy, and 12 (50%) during postpartum. IVCFs placed during pregnancy were frequently in the suprarenal position, in 5 (71%) cases. Meanwhile, 16 (94%) were deployed in an infrarenal position prior to pregnancy and postpartum. Complications included multiple attempts to remove the IVCF (n = 2), severe angulation (n = 4), embedded struts (n = 3), fracture (n = 1), and one case of cardiac tamponade (n = 1). Complications were more common when placement was performed prior to pregnancy or during pregnancy (2, 40% and 4, 57% respectively) versus postpartum (2, 17%). IVCF placement prior or during pregnancy/postpartum is uncommon and is associated with a high incidence of complications, although most did not fundamentally impact clinical outcomes. While IVCFs remain an option for clinicians treating pregnant and postpartum patients, these should be considered a last resource.
Implementing the 2024 ACC/AHA Multisocietal PAD guidelines into clinical practice: Key changes from the 2016 guidelines
Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the third most common cause of cardiovascular death and necessitates prompt, accurate risk assessment at initial diagnosis to guide treatment and reduce associated mortality. Intermediate-risk PE, defined as the presence of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction in the absence of hemodynamic compromise, carries a significant risk for adverse clinical outcomes and represents a unique diagnostic challenge. While small clinical trials have evaluated advanced treatment strategies beyond standard anticoagulation, such as thrombolytic or endovascular therapy, there remains continued debate on the optimal care for this patient population. Here, we review the most recent risk stratification models, highlighting differences between prediction scores and their limitations, and discuss the utility of serologic biomarkers and imaging modalities to detect right ventricular dysfunction. Additionally, we examine current treatment recommendations including anticoagulation strategies, use of thrombolytics at full and reduced doses, and utilization of invasive treatment options. Current knowledge gaps and ongoing studies are highlighted.
SVM Communications: International perspectives on vascular medicine and updates from the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC)