Retrievable Inferior vena cava filters in pregnancy: Risk versus benefit?

Objective: Venous thromboembolism remains one of the leading causes of maternal mortality in the developed world. Retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have a role in the prevention of lethal pulmonary emboli when anticoagulation is contraindicated or has failed [1]. It is unclear whether or not the physiological changes in pregnancy influence efficacy and complications of these devices. The decision to place an IVC filter in pregnancy is complex and there is limited information in terms of benefit and risk to the mother. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of these devices in pregnancy and to compare these with rates reported in the general population.

Study design: The aim of this study was report three recent cases of retrievable IVC filter use in pregnant women in our department and to perform a systematic review of the literature to identify published cases of filters in pregnancy. The efficacy and complication rates of these devices in pregnancy were estimated and compared to rates reported in the general population in a recent review [2]. Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.

Results: In addition to our three cases, 16 publications were identified with retrievable IVC filter use in 40 pregnant women resulting in a total of 43 cases. There was no pulmonary embolus in the pregnant group (0/43) compared to 57/6291 (0.9%) in the general population. Thrombosis of the filter (2.3% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.33) and perforation of the IVC (7.0% vs 4.4%, p = 0.44) were more common in pregnancy compared to the general population but the difference was not statistically significant. Failure to retrieve the filter is more likely to occur in pregnancy (26% vs. 11%, p = 0.006) but this did not correlate with the type of device (p = 0.61), duration of insertion (p = 0.58) or mode of delivery (p = 0.37).

Conclusion: Data for retrievable IVC filters in pregnancy is limited and there may be a publication bias towards complicated cases. This study shows that the filter appears to protect against PE in pregnancy but the numbers are small. Complications such as filter thrombosis and IVC penetration appear to be higher in pregnancy but this difference is not statistically significant. It is not possible to retrieve the device in one out of every four pregnant women. This has implications in terms of long term risk of lower limb thrombosis and post thrombotic syndrome. The decision to use an IVC filter in pregnancy needs careful consideration by a multidisciplinary team. The benefit and risk assessment should be individualised and clearly outlined to the patient.