...
首页> 外文期刊>JACC. Cardiovascular interventions >Contemporary Trends and Comparative Outcomes With Adjunctive Inferior Vena?Cava Filter Placement in Patients Undergoing Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Deep Vein Thrombosis in the United?States
【24h】

Contemporary Trends and Comparative Outcomes With Adjunctive Inferior Vena?Cava Filter Placement in Patients Undergoing Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Deep Vein Thrombosis in the United?States

机译:与辅助下腔内静脉介的当代趋势和比较结果?在联合国的深静脉血栓形成导管导向溶栓中的患者

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the contemporary trends and comparative effectiveness of adjunctive inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) placement in patients undergoing catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for treatment of proximal lower extremity or caval deep vein thrombosis. BackgroundCDT is being increasingly used in the management of proximal deep vein thrombosis. Although a significant number of patients treated with CDT undergo adjunctive IVCF placement, the benefit of this practice remains unknown. MethodsThe National Inpatient Sample database was used to identify all patients with proximal or caval deep vein thrombosis who underwent CDT (with and without adjunctive IVCF placement) in the United States between January 2005 and December 2013. A propensity score–matching algorithm was then used to derive 2 matched groups of patients (IVCF and no IVCF) for comparative outcomes (mortality and major and minor bleeding) and resource use analysis. ResultsOf the 7,119 patients treated with CDT, 2,421 (34%) received IVCFs. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality (0.7% vs 1.0%; p?= 0.20), procedure-related hemorrhage (1.4% vs. 1.0%; p?= 0.23), or intracranial hemorrhage (0.7% vs. 0.6%; p?= 0.70) between the IVCF (n?= 2,259) and no-IVCF (n?= 2,259) groups, respectively. Patients undergoing IVCF placement had higher rates of hematoma (3.4% vs 2.1%; p?= 0.009), higher in-hospital charges ($104,049 ± 75,572 vs. $92,881 ± 80,194; p?< 0.001) and increased length of stay (7.3 ± 5.6 days vs. 6.9 ± 6.9 days; p?= 0.046) compared with the no-IVCF group. ConclusionsThis nationwide observational study suggests that one-third of all patients undergoing CDT receive?IVCFs. IVCF use was not associated with a decrease in in-hospital mortality but was associated with higher inpatient?charges and longer length of stay.
机译:本研究的客观目的是调查辅助下腔静脉滤波器(IVCF)放置的当代趋势和比较有效性,所述患者患者被引导的溶栓(CDT)治疗近端下肢或穴穴深静脉血栓形成。背景CDT越来越多地用于近端深静脉血栓形成的管理。虽然随着CDT治疗的大量患者接受了辅助IVCF的放置,但这种做法的好处仍然是未知的。方法使用国家入住性样本数据库用于识别所有近端或脉深静脉血栓形成的患者,在2005年1月至2013年1月期间在美国接受了CDT(有和没有辅助IVCF放置)。然后使用倾向分数匹配算法衍生2次匹配的患者(IVCF和NO IVCF),用于比较结果(死亡率和主要和微弱的出血)和资源使用分析。含有CDT治疗的7,119名患者,2,421名(34%)接受IVCFS。在医院内死亡率没有显着差异(0.7%vs 1.0%; p?= 0.20),程序相关的出血(1.4%vs.1.0%; p?= 0.23)或颅内出血(0.7%vs.0.6 IVCF(N = 2,259)和No-IVCF(N?= 2,259个)组之间的%; p?= 0.70)。接受IVCF放置的患者具有较高的血肿率(3.4%vs 2.1%; p?= 0.009),较高的住院费用(104,049±75,572 vs. $ 92,881±80,194; p?<0.001),并且保持长度增加(7.3± 5.6天与6.9±6.9天; P?= 0.046)与No-IVC组相比。结论全国范围内的观察研究表明,所有接受CDT的患者的三分之一都会收到IVCF。 IVCF使用与住院内死亡率的降低无关,但与更高的住院病人有关?收费和较长的逗留时间。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号