Impact of consensus statements and reimbursement on vena cava filter utilization

ObjectivePulmonary embolism is the third most common cause of death in hospitalized patients. Vena cava filters (VCFs) are indicated in patients with venous thromboembolism with a contraindication to anticoagulation. Prophylactic indications are still controversial. However, the utilization of VCFs during the past 15 years may have been affected by societal recommendations and reimbursement rates. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of societal guidelines and reimbursement on national trends in VCF placement from 1998 to 2012.MethodsThe National Inpatient Sample was used to identify patients who underwent VCF placement between 1998 and 2012. VCF placement yearly rates were evaluated. Societal guidelines and consensus statements were identified using a PubMed search. Reimbursement rates for VCF were determined on the basis of published Medicare reports. Statistical analysis was completed using descriptive statistics, Fisher exact test, and trend analysis using the Mann-Kendall test and considered significant for P < .05.ResultsThe use of VCFs increased 350% between January 1998 and January 2008. Consensus statements in favor of VCFs published by the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (July 2002) and the Society of Interventional Radiology (March 2006) were temporally associated with a significant 138% and 122% increase in the use of VCFs, respectively (P = .014 and P = .023, respectively). The American College of Chest Physicians guidelines (February 2008 and 2012) discouraging the use of VCFs were preceded by an initial stabilization in the use of VCFs between 2008 and 2012, followed by a 16% decrease in use starting in March 2012 (P = .38). Changes in Medicare reimbursement were not followed by a change in VCF implantation rates.ConclusionsThere is a temporal association between the societal guidelines' recommendations regarding VCF placement and the actual rates of insertion. More uniform consensus statements from multiple societies along with the use of level I evidence may be required to lead to a definitive change in practice.