This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Samuel Z. Goldhaber, MD
Boston, Mass

Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(22):2662.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Greenfield is to be commended for his contributions to the management of venous thromboembolism during the past 3 decades. The Greenfield filter has saved the lives of many patients who could not tolerate anticoagulation or who suffered recurrent PE despite anticoagulation. Nevertheless, despite Greenfield's many achievements, one must question whether an FFT is a legitimate indication for routine filter insertion, especially since Pacouret and colleagues1 have successfully demonstrated that anticoagulation alone results in a recurrent PE rate of only 3% in this high-risk population.

Five points are worth noting in response to Greenfield's letter. First, the insertion of vena caval filters has become increasingly common despite frequently "soft" indications. Second, even when the filter is successfully placed, without any complications, it may not prolong life or improve quality of life. Third, the filter does not neutralize an active thrombotic process; therefore, acute venous thrombosis will continue to propagate, unabated, in . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?