A new device for the prevention of pulmonary embolism in critically ill patients: Results of the European Angel Catheter Registry

BACKGROUND Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a potentially life-threatening complication of critical illness. In trauma and neurosurgical patients with contraindications to anticoagulation, inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have been used to prevent PE, but their associated long-term complication rates and difficulties associated with filter removal have limited their use. The Angel catheter is a temporary device, which combined an IVC filter with a triple-lumen central venous catheter (IVC filter–catheter) and is intended for bedside placement and removal when no longer indicated. METHODS This study presents data from a European Registry of 60 critically ill patients in whom the IVC filter–catheter was used to prevent PE. The patients were all at high risk of PE development or recurrence and had contraindications to anticoagulation. The primary end points of this study were to evaluate the safety (in particular, the presence of infectious or thrombotic events) and effectiveness (the numbers of PEs and averted PEs) of the IVC filter–catheter. RESULTS The main diagnosis before catheter insertion was major trauma in 33 patients (55%), intracerebral hemorrhage or stroke in 9 (15%), a venous thromboembolic event in 9 (15%), and active bleeding in 6 (10%). The IVC filter–catheter was placed as prophylaxis in 51 patients (85%) and as treatment in the 9 patients (15%) with venous thromboembolic event. The devices were inserted at the bedside without fluoroscopic guidance in 54 patients (90%) and within a median of 4 days after hospital admission. They were left in place for a mean of 6 days (4–8 days). One patient developed a PE, without hemodynamic compromise; two PEs were averted. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION Early bedside placement of an IVC filter–catheter is possible, and our results suggest that this is a safe, effective alternative to short-term PE prophylaxis for high-risk patients with contraindications to anticoagulation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic study, level V.

[1]  A. Meltzer,et al.  Risk factors of nonretrieval of retrievable inferior vena cava filters. , 2015, Annals of vascular surgery.

[2]  J. Segal,et al.  The effectiveness of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters in trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2014, JAMA surgery.

[3]  D. Cook,et al.  Heparin Thromboprophylaxis in Medical-Surgical Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials* , 2013, Critical care medicine.

[4]  Y. Arabi,et al.  Use of intermittent pneumatic compression and not graduated compression stockings is associated with lower incident VTE in critically ill patients: a multiple propensity scores adjusted analysis. , 2013, Chest.

[5]  V. Aboyans,et al.  Intermittent pneumatic compression to prevent venous thromboembolism in patients with high risk of bleeding hospitalized in intensive care units: the CIREA1 randomized trial , 2013, Intensive Care Medicine.

[6]  E. Elster,et al.  Dedicated Tracking of Patients with Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters Improves Retrieval Rates , 2012, The American surgeon.

[7]  J. Kaufman,et al.  Systematic review of the use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters. , 2011, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[8]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[9]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Dalteparin versus unfractionated heparin in critically ill patients. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  L. Torelli,et al.  Pulmonary embolism in critically ill patients receiving antithrombotic prophylaxis: a clinical-pathologic study. , 2011, Journal of critical care.

[11]  P. Stein,et al.  Silent pulmonary embolism in patients with deep venous thrombosis: a systematic review. , 2010, The American journal of medicine.

[12]  J. Heit,et al.  Estimated annual numbers of US acute‐care hospital patients at risk for venous thromboembolism , 2007, American journal of hematology.

[13]  R. Tompkins,et al.  The practice of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in the major trauma patient. , 2007, The Journal of trauma.

[14]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Deep venous thrombosis in medical-surgical critically ill patients: Prevalence, incidence, and risk factors , 2005, Critical care medicine.

[15]  S. Goldhaber,et al.  Risk factors associated with symptomatic pulmonary embolism in a large cohort of deep vein thrombosis patients , 2005, Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

[16]  F. Barral,et al.  A clinical trial of vena caval filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis. Prévention du Risque d'Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave Study Group. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  S. Goldhaber Venous thromboembolism in the intensive care unit: the last frontier for prophylaxis. , 1998, Chest.

[18]  T. Baglin,et al.  Fatal pulmonary embolism in hospitalised medical patients. , 1997, Journal of clinical pathology.

[19]  J. Szalai,et al.  A prospective study of venous thromboembolism after major trauma. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  Sfedu Ep,et al.  [Acute pulmonary embolism. I]. , 2010, Cardiologia pratica.