An IVC filter and anticoagulation for 3 months is unlikely to show a benefit over anticoagulation alone for high-risk patients with acute pulmonary embolism

Commentary on : Mismetti P, Laporte S, Pellerin O, et al; PREPIC2 Study Group. 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.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3] Placement of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter to prevent pulmonary embolism (PE) is recommended by multidisciplinary consensus guidelines only when anticoagulation is contraindicated, has resulted in a complication or has failed.1 ,2 Oddly, the only prospective randomised long-term filter efficacy study that demonstrated a reduction in the recurrent PE rate at 8-year follow-up (6.3% vs 15.1%) did so in a setting where both … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJAMA%26rft.volume%253D313%26rft.spage%253D1627%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Fjama.2015.3780%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F25919526%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2015.3780&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=25919526&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2Fearly%2F2015%2F07%2F29%2Febmed-2015-110230.atom