AJR ARRS PQI
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Henkle, G.
Right arrow Articles by Funaki, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Henkle, G.
Right arrow Articles by Funaki, B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?
AJR 2004; 183:1021-1024
© American Roentgen Ray Society

Interventional Radiology

Patterns of Referral for Inferior Vena Caval Filtration: Delays and Their Impact

Gregory Henkle1, Phillip Kunz and Brian Funaki

1 All authors: Department of Radiology, The University of Chicago Hospitals, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC 2026, Chicago, IL 60637.

OBJECTIVE. We sought to study the referral patterns for inferior vena caval filtration and explore the relationship between delays in filter insertion and clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. We retrospectively reviewed 101 consecutive inferior vena caval filters inserted in 101 patients in a university hospital between the June 2000 and July 2001. A time line was created listing the time of diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, contraindication or complication of anticoagulation therapy, and time of insertion of inferior vena caval filter.

RESULTS. The average elapsed time between the clinical indication for caval filtration and filter placement in all patients was 1.64 days (range, 0–17 days). Two patients (2%) sustained pulmonary emboli after being diagnosed with deep venous thrombosis before receiving a filter. The lengths of time between filter indication and insertion for these patients were 2 and 8 days.

CONCLUSION. In our hospital, there are wide variations in perceived urgency of vena caval filtration. In two patients, delays longer than 24 hr between indication and insertion of inferior vena caval filters resulted in symptomatic pulmonary emboli.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.