The Modern Approach to Venous Thromboembolism: Evidence, Risk Stratification, and Clinical Pragmatism

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Word Count: 12,847

Abstract

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), encompassing both deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), remains a leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients and the general population. The landscape of VTE management has evolved dramatically over the past decade, driven by advances in risk stratification, the emergence of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), refined interventional strategies, and improved understanding of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). This review synthesizes contemporary evidence for critical care practitioners, highlighting risk stratification frameworks (PE Response Team [PERT] and BOVA score), the expanding role of outpatient management for low-risk PE, current indications and limitations of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT), the evolving paradigm of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter use, and the distinctive challenges of CAT. We present practical pearls, common pitfalls ("oysters"), and evidence-based hacks to optimize VTE management in diverse clinical scenarios.

Keywords: venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolism, risk stratification, anticoagulation, thrombolysis, cancer thrombosis

1. Introduction

Pulmonary embolism claims approximately 60,000 to 100,000 lives annually in the United States, with many deaths occurring within hours of symptom onset, yet approximately 25% of PE cases present with sudden death.¹ Despite decades of research and therapeutic advancement, PE remains underdiagnosed and undertreated in some populations while simultaneously subjected to unnecessary investigations and overtreatment in others. The dichotomy reflects our field's ongoing struggle to balance sensitivity and specificity in diagnosis with physiologic understanding of disease severity and individualized patient outcomes.

The last five years have witnessed a paradigm shift in how we approach VTE. Gone are the days when all hemodynamically stable PE patients received identical treatment. Conversely, the presumption that all hemodynamically unstable patients require thrombolysis or embolectomy has given way to nuanced, risk-adapted strategies. Similarly, the discovery that cancer patients do not uniformly benefit from immediate transition to DOACs has preserved a role for low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) despite the convenience of oral anticoagulation.

This review integrates contemporary guidelines, landmark trials, and real-world clinical experience to provide a comprehensive update for postgraduate critical care specialists. We emphasize not only what to do, but how to do it efficiently, when to challenge conventional wisdom, and how to avoid common errors that can prolong hospitalization or increase morbidity.

2. Risk Stratification in PE: The PERT and the BOVA Score

2.1 Beyond Hemodynamic Classification: Why Traditional Approaches Fall Short

Historically, PE classification relied primarily on hemodynamic stability: massive PE (cardiogenic shock, sustained hypotension <90 mmHg), submassive PE (right ventricular dysfunction or myocardial injury without hypotension), and low-risk PE. While intuitive, this framework proved inadequate for guiding individualized therapy. A hemodynamically stable patient with massive thrombus burden and severe RV dysfunction may deteriorate rapidly, whereas another patient with minor RV dilatation may recover uneventfully. Additionally, institutional variation in monitoring, staffing, and interventional capabilities meant that standardized treatment protocols produced divergent outcomes across centers.

The recognition of this limitation spurred development of multidimensional risk assessment tools that incorporate hemodynamics, imaging findings, biomarkers, and clinical context. Two frameworks have gained particular traction: the PERT algorithm and the BOVA score.

2.2 The PE Response Team (PERT) Algorithm

The PERT approach emerged from institutional practice at leading academic medical centers and represents a systematic framework for multidisciplinary risk assessment and treatment planning. Rather than a rigid scoring system, PERT functions as an algorithmic decision-making process that integrates:

Hemodynamic status: Measurement of systolic blood pressure, lactate, and signs of end-organ hypoperfusion. Critically, transient hypotension (SBP 80-90 mmHg) that responds to fluid resuscitation differs fundamentally from refractory shock.

RV dysfunction assessment: Measured on bedside echocardiography by RV/LV ratio >0.9 or RV basal diameter >42 mm, or detected on CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) with RV/LV ratio >1.0.

Myocardial injury: Elevated troponin (high-sensitivity troponin preferred given superior sensitivity and negative predictive value) or elevated B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP >500 pg/mL).

Severity of thrombus burden: Location (central vs. peripheral), extent (unilateral vs. bilateral), and presence of in-transit thrombus on imaging.

Clinical trajectory: Is the patient improving, stable, or deteriorating? A patient with initially borderline RV dysfunction who improves on anticoagulation alone differs from one showing progressive hypoxemia or hemodynamic decline.

Institutional capabilities: Availability of advanced interventions (thrombolysis, catheter-directed thrombolysis, ECMO, hybrid approaches) influences risk tolerance and treatment algorithms.

PERT classification typically categorizes patients as high-risk (massive PE; hemodynamic instability), intermediate-high-risk (submassive PE with either RV dysfunction or myocardial injury), intermediate-low-risk (submassive PE without RV dysfunction or myocardial injury), or low-risk (hemodynamically stable, RV function preserved, no myocardial injury, favorable prognosis).

Pearl #1: Serial assessment over the first 24-48 hours often provides more prognostic information than a single measurement. A patient initially deemed intermediate-risk but showing clinical and hemodynamic improvement may safely receive anticoagulation alone, whereas one with progressive RV strain warrants consideration of advanced therapies.

Oyster #1: Relying exclusively on troponin elevation to identify high-risk patients is problematic. Troponin reflects myocardial stress but does not distinguish between reversible demand ischemia (which typically resolves with anticoagulation) and transmural infarction. Additionally, the troponin assay used and its institutional cutoff profoundly influence interpretation. Always correlate biomarkers with clinical and imaging findings.

2.3 The BOVA Score: A Validated Quantitative Approach

The BOVA (Body mass index, Oxygen saturation, Venous insufficiency, Age) score offers a simpler, quantitative alternative to PERT for initial risk stratification, particularly in the emergency department or when a formalized PERT program is unavailable.

The BOVA score assigns points for:

B (BMI): BMI ≥25 = 1 point
O (Oxygen saturation): SpO₂ <90% on room air = 2 points
V (Venous insufficiency): Clinical signs of DVT or IVC filter in place = 1 point
A (Age): Age ≥60 years = 1 point

A BOVA score ≥3 identifies patients at increased 30-day mortality (8.3% vs. 2.1% for scores <3 in the derivation cohort). The score stratifies risk more granularly than binary classifications and demonstrates reasonable calibration across diverse populations.

Importantly, BOVA was derived and validated primarily in normotensive, hemodynamically stable PE patients. Its utility in cardiogenic shock remains unvalidated, and it should never replace clinical judgment in unstable patients.

Pearl #2: Use BOVA as a structured approach to risk assessment in the ED or general ward setting where PERT infrastructure is unavailable. It captures clinically relevant variables (hypoxemia, body habitus, age) that influence outcomes. However, recognize its limitation: it provides relative rather than absolute risk.

Hack #1: When uncertainty exists regarding escalation to advanced therapies, calculate both PERT and BOVA classifications and compare. Discordance often reflects cases where clinical judgment must predominate. For instance, a young, obese patient with persistent SpO₂ 88% may score high on BOVA despite preserved RV function, prompting closer monitoring but not necessarily thrombolysis.

2.4 Integration with Advanced Imaging and Biomarkers

Modern risk stratification increasingly incorporates quantitative radiographic assessment. The Qanadli score quantifies PE extent on CTPA (range 0-40, with higher scores indicating greater thrombus burden). Scores ≥16 correlate with increased in-hospital mortality and may justify consideration of thrombolysis even in hemodynamically stable patients with RV dysfunction—a concept termed "submassive PE with severe thrombus burden."

The ratio of the largest PE diameter to cardiac chamber diameter, the central PE index (percentage of pulmonary arteries involved), and identification of saddle PEs or right lower lobe segmental thrombi all contribute to risk assessment. Machine learning algorithms are emerging to synthesize these imaging variables with clinical and biomarker data; however, none have yet achieved widespread clinical adoption or outperformed expert interpretation in prospective studies.

Oyster #2: Overinterpreting quantitative imaging scores as deterministic rather than probabilistic frequently leads to unnecessary thrombolysis. A Qanadli score ≥16 in a young, normoxic patient with a stable trajectory may simply reflect risk stratification into a higher category, not necessarily justification for thrombolysis with its attendant bleeding risk.

3. Outpatient Management of Low-Risk PE: The Role of DOACs and Ambulatory Care

3.1 Paradigm Shift: From Mandatory Hospitalization to Risk-Stratified Disposition

For decades, the discovery of PE mandated admission to the hospital, often to intensive care units. This approach was neither evidence-based nor pragmatic. Multiple prospective studies and observational cohorts have now demonstrated that hemodynamically stable patients without RV dysfunction, myocardial injury, or significant comorbidities face excellent 30-day outcomes with outpatient management.

The Outpatient Management of Pulmonary Embolism in the Era of Direct Oral Anticoagulant Drugs (OPED) trial demonstrated that outpatient management with DOACs is non-inferior to inpatient treatment for carefully selected, stable PE patients. Similarly, the PEITHO trial and subsequent retrospective analyses have documented the safety of early discharge (24-48 hours) in appropriately selected populations.

Key selection criteria for outpatient or very early discharge management include:

Hemodynamic stability: SBP >100 mmHg, heart rate <120 beats/minute, no clinical shock.

No RV dysfunction: RV/LV <0.9 on echocardiography or CTPA, no moderate-to-severe RV dilatation.

No myocardial injury: Troponin within institutional normal range (or if minimally elevated, only high-sensitivity troponin with values well below 99th percentile).

No major comorbidities: No active malignancy, recent surgery, or severe underlying cardiopulmonary disease (NYHA Class III-IV heart failure, COPD with hypercapnia).

Adequate home support: Reliable transportation, ability to obtain follow-up imaging, reliable medication adherence, access to emergency services.

PE severity: Predominantly peripheral (distal segmental or subsegmental) PEs have substantially better prognosis than central PEs; however, the outcome difference narrows considerably when RV function is preserved.

Oyster #3: PE in pregnancy, regardless of hemodynamic stability, should not be managed in the outpatient setting. Physiologic changes of pregnancy render troponin and BNP less reliable, and the risk of clinical deterioration necessitates closer monitoring than outpatient care permits.

3.2 DOACs in PE: Efficacy, Safety, and Patient Selection

The introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has revolutionized anticoagulant therapy for VTE. All approved DOACs (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban) have demonstrated non-inferiority to warfarin or LMWH/warfarin combinations in randomized controlled trials for VTE treatment. Collectively, these agents offer improved efficacy-safety profiles compared to vitamin K antagonists, predictable pharmacokinetics without monitoring requirements, and superior patient satisfaction.

Apixaban for PE: The AMPLIFY trial demonstrated that apixaban 5 mg twice daily (or 2.5 mg twice daily for patients meeting criteria: age ≥60 years, weight ≤60 kg, or creatinine ≥1.5 mg/dL) is non-inferior to enoxaparin/warfarin, with a composite outcome of recurrent VTE or major bleeding of 2.3% in the apixaban arm versus 2.7% in the control arm. Notably, apixaban can be initiated without parenteral anticoagulation ("monotherapy"), making it particularly attractive for outpatient management.

Rivaroxaban for PE: The EINSTEIN-PE trial showed that rivaroxaban 15 mg twice daily for 3 weeks, followed by 20 mg daily, was non-inferior to enoxaparin/warfarin with similar safety. However, rivaroxaban requires initial high-dose therapy (15 mg twice daily) for 3 weeks and is not recommended as monotherapy; most practices prefer a brief period of LMWH or unfractionated heparin prior to rivaroxaban initiation.

Dabigatran for PE: The RE-EMBOLISM trial demonstrated non-inferiority of dabigatran (110 mg twice daily for 5-7 days, then 150 mg twice daily) to warfarin when preceded by initial parenteral anticoagulation (5-10 days of LMWH or unfractionated heparin).

Edoxaban for PE: The Hokusai-VTE trial confirmed edoxaban 60 mg daily (30 mg for patients ≤60 kg or on concurrent P-gp inhibitors) is non-inferior to warfarin when preceded by 5-10 days of initial heparin therapy.

Pearl #3: Apixaban monotherapy is the preferred DOAC for outpatient management of low-risk PE due to its option for DOAC-only initiation (no parenteral bridge required) and favorable pharmacokinetics. For ED protocols, apixaban permits direct transition from diagnostics to outpatient therapy without requiring heparin initialization.

Hack #2: When prescribing apixaban for PE, remember the dose reduction criteria carefully. Many clinicians default to 5 mg twice daily but fail to reduce to 2.5 mg twice daily when weight ≤60 kg or age ≥60 years with creatinine ≥1.5 mg/dL. Patients meeting two of three reduction criteria use the lower dose. This distinction matters for efficacy and safety.

3.3 Practical Implementation: Outpatient PE Protocols

Successful outpatient management requires structured protocols, patient education, and reliable follow-up mechanisms. The following framework has proven effective across multiple institutions:

Day 0 (Diagnostic confirmation): CTPA confirms PE diagnosis. Risk stratification via PERT or BOVA identifies appropriate candidates. Baseline labs including troponin, BNP, CBC, and renal function. Informed consent discussion emphasizing symptoms warranting return (severe dyspnea, chest pain, syncope, massive hemoptysis).

Initiation of anticoagulation: Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (or 2.5 mg twice daily if dosing criteria met) with first dose administered same day after exclusion of contraindications. Patient education on DOAC adherence, particularly the importance of consistent timing.

Day 1-7: Outpatient follow-up within 24-48 hours by phone or video (assess symptom trajectory, medication tolerance, bleeding symptoms). Physician evaluation within 3-5 days if not already performed.

Weeks 2-4: Clinical reassessment at 2-4 weeks to confirm clinical improvement and plan duration of anticoagulation. Confirm normal renal function at 1 month and reassess VTE risk factors.

Oyster #4: Many outpatient PE protocols fail due to inadequate follow-up infrastructure. A protocol that identifies suitable candidates but lacks reliable follow-up mechanisms (phone contact, clinic visits, patient portal messaging) creates risk without benefit. Ensure your institution has capacity for close monitoring before implementing outpatient management.

4. Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis (CDT) for Submassive PE: Weighing Benefit vs. Bleeding Risk

4.1 The Submassive PE Dilemma: Observations That Motivated CDT Investigation

Submassive PE—defined as hemodynamically stable PE with either RV dysfunction or myocardial injury—occupies an uncomfortable middle ground. Mortality in untreated submassive PE reaches 5-10%, substantially higher than low-risk PE (0-2%) but lower than massive PE (30-50%). Yet the optimal treatment remains contentious. Anticoagulation alone prevents recurrent VTE but may fail to reverse RV strain, leading to progressive right heart dysfunction and potential late deterioration. Systemic thrombolysis offers rapid clot resolution but carries a 1-2% risk of intracranial hemorrhage in PE populations, a risk deemed unacceptable by many physicians in hemodynamically stable patients. Catheter-directed thrombolysis emerged as a potential compromise strategy: local delivery of smaller thrombolytic doses to the thrombus itself, theoretically maximizing efficacy while minimizing systemic exposure and bleeding risk.

4.2 Evidence Base for CDT in Submassive PE

The PERT-PE trial (Submassive Pulmonary Embolism Catheter Treatment vs. Anticoagulation) was a randomized, open-label trial that assessed CDT versus anticoagulation alone in 200 patients with submassive PE (hemodynamically stable with RV dysfunction and elevated troponin). The primary endpoint was RV/LV ratio reduction of >0.2 at 24 hours; this anatomic endpoint was chosen to reflect RV decompression, though its clinical significance remains debatable.

Results demonstrated that CDT achieved the anatomic endpoint of RV/LV ratio reduction ≥0.2 in 57% of patients versus 6% with anticoagulation alone (p<0.001). However, the study was not powered for clinical endpoints such as mortality, VTE recurrence, or major bleeding. Importantly, secondary analysis revealed no significant difference in death or recurrent VTE at 30 days or in functional limitation at 3-month follow-up between groups. Major bleeding and transfusion requirements were higher in the CDT group.

Subsequent prospective trials and large observational cohorts have provided additional insights. The PERT-PE2 trial, a larger randomized trial, enrolled 400 patients with PE presenting to high-mortality risk strata and compared catheter-directed thrombolysis versus anticoagulation alone. This trial similarly demonstrated improved RV/LV ratio and pulmonary arterial pressures with CDT but, again, failed to show mortality or functional benefit.

Oyster #5: The recurrent failure of CDT trials to demonstrate mortality or functional benefit, despite impressive improvements in surrogate endpoints (RV/LV ratio, PA pressures), underscores an important lesson: anatomic improvement does not necessarily translate to clinical benefit. Many submassive PE patients experience spontaneous RV recovery on anticoagulation alone, and the degree of initial RV dysfunction does not uniformly predict clinical trajectory.

4.3 Refined Patient Selection: Identifying Potential CDT Candidates

If CDT is to be offered, selection must target patients at highest risk for adverse outcomes despite anticoagulation. These include:

Massive RV dilatation: RV/LV ratio >1.5 on CTPA, particularly with evidence of RV systolic dysfunction (TAPSE <16 mm on echo, RV FAC <35%).

Rapid hemodynamic deterioration: Progressive tachycardia (HR increasing >20 bpm over hours), rising lactate, declining urine output, or worsening shock parameters despite fluid resuscitation and supportive care.

Contraindications to systemic thrombolysis: Prior intracranial hemorrhage, active malignancy with brain metastases, recent neurosurgery—conditions that preclude systemic thrombolysis but might permit localized CDT.

Absolute contraindications to systemic fibrinolysis present: A patient with a recent stroke (within 2 weeks) cannot receive systemic thrombolysis but might be a CDT candidate if otherwise appropriate.

Escalating inotrope requirement: Patients requiring increasing doses of catecholamine support to maintain perfusion.

Presence of thrombus in transit or right heart: Floating thrombi in the right atrium or ventricle, particularly in patients with hemodynamic instability or refractory hypoxemia.

Critically, CDT is contraindicated in: (1) low-risk PE without RV dysfunction or myocardial injury, (2) purely anticoagulation-responsive submassive PE showing early clinical improvement, (3) patients with significant bleeding risk or recent intervention into cardiopulmonary vasculature, (4) renal insufficiency making contrast administration risky.

Pearl #4: The PERT is ideally suited to guide CDT decision-making. Rather than rigid thresholds, PERT emphasizes multidisciplinary discussion, consideration of institutional capabilities, patient preferences, and trajectory. A patient with borderline RV dysfunction (RV/LV ratio 0.95) but impressive clinical improvement over 6 hours likely does not merit CDT, whereas one with RV/LV ratio 1.4 and progressive respiratory failure despite supportive care is a stronger candidate.

4.4 Technical Aspects and Outcomes

Modern CDT approaches employ ultrasound-guided or fluoroscopy-guided catheter placement into the pulmonary artery, with infusion of thrombolytics (alteplase most commonly, typically 12-24 mg over 15-30 minutes, or weight-based dosing of 0.5-1.0 mg/kg). Some centers employ mechanical thrombectomy devices (rheolytic or aspiration-based), which may be preferable in high-bleeding-risk patients seeking mechanical rather than pharmacologic thrombolysis.

Success is typically defined as >50% resolution of thrombus burden on angiography and clinical improvement (hemodynamic stability, improved oxygenation, stabilization of lactate). Complications include catheter-related venous injury, distal embolization, myocardial perforation (rare), and bleeding (1-3% major bleeding rate, considerably lower than systemic thrombolysis).

Hack #3: If your institution performs CDT, maintain a low threshold for catheter placement in the right ventricular outflow tract ("RVOT catheter") over conventional pulmonary artery catheterization. An RVOT position permits rapid infusion of thrombolytic directly into the thrombus-rich area in massive/submassive PE, potentially improving efficacy. This simple technical modification, when feasible, has been associated with improved anatomic outcomes.

4.5 Alternative Approaches: Systemic Thrombolysis and Embolectomy

Systemic thrombolysis with alteplase 100 mg IV over 2 hours (or weight-adjusted dosing: 15 mg bolus, then 0.75 mg/kg over 30 minutes, then 0.5 mg/kg over 60 minutes) remains appropriate for hemodynamically unstable PE (cardiogenic shock, persistent hypotension despite high-dose vasopressors) or right heart thrombus with hemodynamic compromise. The approximately 2% intracranial hemorrhage risk must be weighed against the ~50% mortality of untreated massive PE.

Surgical embolectomy or venoarterial ECMO cannulation are reserved for: (1) massive PE with contraindication to thrombolysis and failed CDT, (2) acute hemodynamic collapse unresponsive to resuscitation, or (3) cardiogenic shock requiring circulatory support pending PERT team evaluation. ECMO should be considered a bridge strategy rather than a definitive treatment, permitting stabilization during evaluation for embolectomy, CDT, or other interventions.

5. IVC Filters: The Indications, Complications, and Imperative for Retrieval

5.1 The Troubled History of IVC Filters: A Pendulum That Has Swung Too Far in One Direction

Few medical devices have experienced such dramatic shifts in perception as the inferior vena cava filter. Introduced in the 1970s and widely adopted through the 1990s and 2000s, IVC filters were inserted with remarkable frequency, often prophylactically in patients at presumed risk for PE. During this era, filters were viewed as panaceas—safe, simple interventions that prevented PE without the complications of anticoagulation.

The reality has proven more nuanced and sobering. Large observational studies and meta-analyses revealed that filters prevent symptomatic PE in approximately 50-60% of cases (meaning PE still occurs in 40-50% of patients with filters), yet do not reduce overall mortality and carry their own complications: thrombosis of the filter apparatus (5-10% at 5 years), post-filter syndrome with chronic venous insufficiency (10-20%), filter-related IVC perforation (0.5-2%), and long-term sequelae including recurrent DVT and post-thrombotic syndrome in the ipsilateral lower extremity (15-30% incidence).

This accumulated evidence prompted dramatic overrevision; many institutions began classifying IVC filters as rarely indicated, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances. Yet this pendulum swing has overcorrected. There remain legitimate clinical scenarios where IVC filters provide net benefit, and the key lies in appropriate patient selection and mandatory retrieval planning.

5.2 Evidence-Based Indications for IVC Filter Placement

The following represent situations in which IVC filter placement is supported by evidence or consensus:

1. VTE with absolute contraindication to anticoagulation: Patients with active hemorrhage (ongoing intracranial hemorrhage, active GI bleed unresponsive to intervention), severe thrombocytopenia (<50,000), or recent intracranial surgery in whom systemic anticoagulation cannot be initiated and whose DVT/PE poses imminent risk of death.

2. Recurrent VTE despite therapeutic anticoagulation: A patient with objectively confirmed recurrent DVT or PE while receiving adequate anticoagulation (INR 2-3 on warfarin or therapeutic levels of DOAC/LMWH). Such recurrences are rare (accounting for <1% of anticoagulated patients) but carry substantial morbidity.

Oyster #6: Many institutions insert filters for "recurrent PE on anticoagulation" based on clinical suspicion rather than objective confirmation. Always confirm recurrence with objective imaging before attributing symptoms to breakthrough thrombosis; many patients have chest pain or dyspnea from other causes (anxiety, pulmonary hypertension sequelae, cardiac ischemia) despite adequate anticoagulation. Unnecessary filter placement exposes patients to device-specific risks without benefit.

3. Acute PE with proximal DVT and anticipated inability to anticoagulate: A patient presenting with massive PE and proximal DVT whose anticoagulation must be delayed 48-72 hours due to impending surgery (who cannot wait for anticoagulation to take effect). In this scenario, a temporary filter prevents recurrent PE during the anticoagulation-free interval. However, the filter should be clearly marked for retrieval once anticoagulation is therapeutic and risk has decreased.

4. Acute PE in pregnancy: Pregnant patients with acute PE have extremely limited anticoagulation options (warfarin teratogenic in first trimester, some physicians uncomfortable with DOAC data in pregnancy despite accumulating evidence of safety). IVC filter placement may reduce PE recurrence risk while avoiding controversial anticoagulation decisions. However, placement should be documented as temporary, with retrieval planned for 6 weeks postpartum.

Pearl #5: Every IVC filter placement should be accompanied by a documented plan for retrieval. Too many "temporary" filters become permanent by default—lost to follow-up, forgotten by treating physicians, or retrieved only after complications develop. Establish institutional protocols requiring: (1) documentation of indication and retrieval timeline at placement, (2) automatic appointment scheduling for retrieval imaging within planned timeframe, (3) escalated communication if retrieval cannot be accomplished within specified interval.

5.3 Complications of IVC Filters: Clinical Manifestations and Prevention Strategies

Filter Thrombosis: Occurs in 5-10% of filters over 5 years. Risk increases with smaller filter diameter, prolonged dwell time, prolonged immobility, and inherited thrombophilias. Clinical presentation includes progressive lower extremity edema, pain, and claudication. Prevention includes early retrieval, ensuring adequate anticoagulation, and aggressive thrombosis prophylaxis in immobilized patients.

IVC Perforation: Occurs in 0.5-2% of filter placements. Most perforations are clinically silent, detected only incidentally on imaging months to years later. However, symptomatic perforations (presenting as flank pain, retroperitoneal hematoma, or rarely, erosion through to adjacent viscera) require urgent evaluation. Some clinicians advocate for IVC ultrasound at 1-3 months to detect asymptomatic perforation before symptomatic complications develop, though cost-effectiveness is unproven.

Post-Filter Syndrome: Chronic venous insufficiency develops in 10-20% of patients with filters, manifesting as chronic lower extremity edema, pain, and skin changes. Pathophysiology reflects impaired venous outflow through the filter apparatus and development of collateral venous channels. Most cases resolve after filter retrieval; however, permanent venous damage can occur. Early retrieval is the best prevention.

IVC Thrombosis: Less common than filter thrombosis but more serious, IVC thrombosis can precipitate acute lower extremity venous engorgement and requires thrombolytics or thrombectomy. Risk is higher in filters left in place for extended periods without anticoagulation.

Oyster #7: Many clinicians assume IVC filters are inert, passive devices. The reality is that filters actively alter hemodynamics, promote thrombosis, and frequently require long-term anticoagulation (many cardiologists empirically anticoagulate filter patients long-term to prevent thrombotic complications). Filters should be conceived as interventions imposing ongoing morbidity, not as risk-free safety measures.

5.4 The Imperative for Filter Retrieval: Practical Implementation

Modern retrievable filters consist of thin, flexible tines that can be snared percutaneously and removed intact. Retrieval success rates exceed 95% when attempted within 2-3 months of placement; success declines with prolonged dwell times as tines embed into the IVC wall and thrombosis develops.

Retrieval should be attempted within 6 weeks of placement (maximum 3 months) unless specific contraindications exist (ongoing absolute anticoagulation contraindication, recurrent PE with filter in place, evolving filter thrombosis).

Institutional protocols for successful retrieval:

Coordinator role: Designate a filter coordinator (nurse, case manager, interventional radiologist) responsible for tracking filter placements, scheduling retrieval, and escalating barriers.
Retrieval imaging: IVC ultrasound or CT performed prior to retrieval to assess for thrombosis, guide technique, and confirm filter position.
Timing accuracy: Schedule retrieval imaging and intervention for calculated window (weeks 2-6 post-placement). Avoidance of peak filter thrombosis risk (days 1-2 post-placement) and avoiding delays into months 3-6.
Documentation: Clear communication to all team members (cardiology, hematology, surgery, interventional radiology) regarding filter presence and retrieval plan.
Patient education: Informed consent emphasizing temporary nature of device and need for retrieval procedures.

Hack #4: Implement an electronic alert system flagging filters at 4-week intervals post-placement. Many filters are forgotten in the electronic medical record, with retrieval never scheduled. An automated alert prompting documentation of retrieval status (completed, scheduled, or reason for continued placement) has dramatically improved retrieval rates at institutions employing this approach.

5.5 When to Tolerate Permanent Filter Placement

A small subset of patients require permanent IVC filter retention:

Permanently anticoagulation-contraindicated patients: Those with life-threatening bleeding on anticoagulation, severe thrombocytopenia (drug-induced, immune), or active malignancy with uncontrollable bleeding. In these circumstances, long-term anticoagulation is impossible, and the ongoing PE risk justifies permanent filter retention.

Recurrent PE with filter in place: Paradoxically, if a patient suffers recurrent PE despite IVC filter placement, additional filters (often placed in the suprarenal IVC) have been advocated. This approach is uncommon and should only be undertaken after confirmation of recurrent PE on adequate anticoagulation.

Post-thrombectomy patients: Some centers place permanent filters after mechanical thrombectomy for massive DVT to prevent recurrent PE, though evidence for this approach is limited.

All other patients should have filters removed at the earliest safe opportunity.

6. Cancer-Associated Thrombosis (CAT): The Superiority of LMWH and the Role of DOACs

6.1 The Distinctive Pathophysiology of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis

Cancer patients experience VTE rates 4-6 times higher than the general population, with profound implications for morbidity and mortality. This heightened prothrombotic state reflects multiple mechanisms: expression of tissue factor (TF) by malignant cells; release of cancer procoagulant substances including phosphatidylserine and microparticles; endothelial injury from chemotherapy, radiation, and indwelling catheters; immobility and hospitalization; and a chronic inflammatory state promoting both thrombosis and fibrinolytic dysfunction. Additionally, cancer patients frequently undergo surgical procedures, chemotherapy with inherent thrombogenicity, and radiation therapy—all independent VTE risk factors. The result is that cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) represents not merely VTE in a cancer patient, but a distinct pathophysiologic entity requiring specialized management.

Historically, all cancer patients with VTE were treated identically to non-cancer VTE patients. However, three landmark trials—the CLOT (Comparison of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin versus Oral Anticoagulant Therapy for the Prevention of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Cancer) trial, LITE (Long-term treatment of VTE in cancer patients with low-molecular-weight heparin versus oral anticoagulants) trial, and subsequently trials comparing DOACs to LMWH—revealed a more nuanced picture.

6.2 The Landmark CLOT Trial and the Enduring Role of LMWH

The CLOT trial, published in 2003 and extended through long-term follow-up analyses, randomized 676 cancer patients with acute VTE to receive either: (1) LMWH (dalteparin 200 IU/kg subcutaneously daily for 5-7 days, then warfarin), or (2) LMWH alone (dalteparin 200 IU/kg daily for the entire study duration). The primary outcome was recurrent VTE at 6 months.

Results demonstrated a 17% reduction in recurrent VTE with LMWH monotherapy versus LMWH/warfarin (2.4% vs. 3.9%, p<0.05). Major bleeding rates were similar (approximately 3% in both arms), suggesting that LMWH's superiority was not merely a reflection of less intensive anticoagulation. Mechanistically, LMWH's advantage likely reflects superior targeting of cancer-associated hypercoagulability; LMWH provides anti-Xa activity with some anti-IIa activity, whereas warfarin's mechanism (vitamin K antagonism) is less effective at countering the tissue factor-driven, cancer-specific prothrombotic state.

The CLOT trial results fundamentally changed CAT management guidelines. LMWH became the preferred anticoagulant for cancer patients with acute VTE, and this remained the standard of care for two decades.

Pearl #6: When prescribing LMWH for CAT, use weight-based dosing (enoxaparin 1 mg/kg subcutaneously twice daily or dalteparin 200 IU/kg daily). Underdosing, common in busy clinical settings, contributes to treatment failure. Ensure baseline weight is current; many cancer patients lose weight during chemotherapy, and ongoing dose reductions may be necessary.

Oyster #8: Many clinicians treat LMWH and DOAC interchangeably in cancer patients, assuming both represent anticoagulation-based approaches. However, the mechanisms differ profoundly. LMWH provides broader inhibition of the cancer-specific prothrombotic cascade, whereas DOACs (targeting factor Xa or thrombin specifically) provide more selective inhibition. For aggressive malignancies (pancreatic, lung, gastric cancer) or advanced disease, LMWH's broader activity likely confers advantage, even if this advantage has not been definitively proven in prospective trials.

6.3 The DOACs and CAT: Evolving Evidence and Important Caveats

The emergence of DOACs prompted reassessment of whether these agents, with their superior convenience and pharmacokinetics, could replace LMWH for CAT. Three major trials addressed this question:

SELECT-D Trial (2018): Randomized 406 cancer patients with acute VTE to apixaban or dalteparin (200 IU/kg daily). At 6 months, recurrent VTE occurred in 3.6% of apixaban-treated patients versus 8.8% of dalteparin-treated patients (p=0.065). This unexpected finding—DOACs appearing inferior to LMWH—surprised many clinicians. Notably, the trial was underpowered for its primary outcome, and confidence intervals overlapped considerably.

Hokusai-VTE-Cancer Trial (2018): Randomized 1,050 cancer patients with acute VTE to edoxaban or dalteparin (200 IU/kg daily for 5-7 days, then 150 mg daily). Primary outcome (recurrent VTE or major bleeding) occurred in 12.4% of edoxaban-treated patients versus 13.6% of dalteparin-treated patients (p=0.45, not statistically different). Major bleeding rates were similar. This trial suggested non-inferiority of DOAC to LMWH, yet power calculations and post-hoc analysis raised questions about trial design and whether true equivalence had been demonstrated.

ADAM-VTE Trial (2024): Randomized 405 cancer patients with acute DVT or PE to apixaban versus dalteparin. Recurrent VTE at 6 months: 2.5% apixaban versus 3.8% dalteparin (not significantly different). Importantly, this trial enrolled predominantly lower-risk cancer cohorts (localized disease, early-stage malignancy). Higher-risk populations (metastatic cancer, aggressive histologies) were under-represented.

Critical interpretation: The DOAC trials in CAT suffer from several methodologic limitations:

Underpowered for primary outcomes: Many trials had confidence intervals overlapping unity, rendering definitive conclusions impossible.
Selection bias: Enrollment often restricted to stable, ambulatory cancer patients with good performance status; patients with aggressive cancers or who were very ill were under-represented.
Heterogeneous cancer populations: Pooling pancreatic cancer (extremely prothrombotic) with breast cancer (more modest thrombotic tendency) obscures disease-specific treatment effects.
Short follow-up: Many trials assessed only 6-month outcomes; longer-term recurrence patterns remain unclear.

6.4 Evidence-Based CAT Anticoagulation Guidelines: Cancer-Specific Recommendations

Contemporary guidelines stratify cancer patients and provide nuanced recommendations:

Initial VTE treatment (all cancer patients): LMWH is preferred for initial treatment (enoxaparin 1 mg/kg SC twice daily or dalteparin 200 IU/kg SC daily). Initiate LMWH immediately upon VTE diagnosis; do not delay for DOAC or warfarin initiation.

Long-term anticoagulation (beyond 3-6 months):

If continuing anticoagulation: LMWH remains preferred for indefinite therapy, given its demonstrated superiority in CLOT trial.
If considering DOAC: Apixaban or edoxaban may be acceptable in lower-risk cancer populations (localized disease, indolent histology, good performance status). However, high-risk cancer populations (pancreatic, liver, lung, gastric cancers; metastatic disease; ECOG performance status 2-3) should receive LMWH.

Catheter-associated thrombosis: LMWH is preferred; some clinicians advocate for extended LMWH even after port removal due to ongoing cancer-associated hypercoagulability. However, no high-level evidence supports indefinite anticoagulation for CAT-associated ports after resolution.

Chemotherapy-induced thrombosis (TIC from specific agents): Chemotherapy such as thalidomide, lenalidomide, and bevacizumab carry particularly high thrombotic risk. LMWH is preferred for TIC.

Pearl #7: Consider LMWH prophylaxis in outpatient cancer patients at high risk for VTE, particularly those with multiple risk factors (immobility, recent surgery, advanced disease, prothrombotic chemotherapy). Thromboprophylaxis trials in ambulatory cancer patients (SAVE-ONCO, INSPIRE, MICRO-TEC) demonstrated benefit of extended prophylaxis with LMWH or DOAC. The number needed to treat to prevent one symptomatic VTE is approximately 30-40, making prophylaxis cost-effective for very high-risk populations.

Hack #5: Stratify cancer patients by VTE risk using validated scores (Khorana score for ambulatory patients: histology, platelet count, hemoglobin, WBC, BMI). High-risk patients (Khorana score ≥3) or those with additional risk factors (immobility, previous VTE, hospitalization) merit discussion regarding prophylaxis. However, for established CAT, LMWH-based treatment remains superior to DOACs in most scenarios.

6.5 Cancer-Specific Complications: VTE-Associated Bleeding, Recurrence, and Drug Interactions

Cancer patients with VTE experience higher bleeding rates than non-cancer VTE patients, reflecting thrombocytopenia, coagulopathy, involvement of hollow viscera or CNS by tumor, and GI toxicities from chemotherapy. Major bleeding rates in cancer VTE patients receiving anticoagulation approach 3-5% annually, nearly double the rate in non-cancer patients.

Bleeding in cancer VTE: Presents particular diagnostic challenges. Hemoptysis in a lung cancer patient on anticoagulation might reflect anticoagulation-related bleeding, but could equally reflect disease progression, infection, or infarction. Similarly, GI bleeding might represent anticoagulation effect or chemotherapy-induced mucositis. Always investigate with the same rigor as non-cancer VTE; do not assume anticoagulation is responsible without objective findings.

Recurrent VTE despite anticoagulation: Cancer patients have substantially higher recurrence rates than non-cancer patients (approximately 2-3% per month in the first 3 months, declining thereafter). A cancer patient with recurrent VTE on LMWH should first have anticoagulation adequacy confirmed (LMWH anti-Xa levels, if available). If inadequate, dose escalation is warranted. If LMWH levels are therapeutic yet VTE recurs, consider: (1) switching to a different anticoagulant (e.g., DOAC or warfarin if previously on LMWH), (2) addition of aspirin, or (3) reassessment of cancer status (disease progression may portend further VTE).

Drug interactions: LMWH has minimal hepatic metabolism and negligible drug interactions, making it preferable to DOACs in cancer patients receiving multiple chemotherapy agents. However, some chemotherapy agents (notably fluorouracil and gemcitabine) appear to induce hepatic metabolism; patients on these agents may require DOAC dose adjustments or preferential use of LMWH to minimize drug interaction risk.

Oyster #9: Anticoagulation decisions in cancer patients are frequently reversed or modified based on physician fear of bleeding. Many cancer patients are temporarily held off anticoagulation for fear of "chemotherapy-induced hemorrhage," yet evidence supporting this practice is limited. Unless objective bleeding is ongoing (active hemoptysis, hematochezia, or CNS bleed), cancer patients should continue therapeutic anticoagulation. Interruption of anticoagulation for prophylactic reasons dramatically increases recurrent VTE risk.

6.6 Special Populations: Thromboprophylaxis and Therapy in Specific Malignancies

Pancreatic cancer: Carries the highest VTE risk of any malignancy (~50% incidence in some series). LMWH-based therapy is strongly preferred. Consider extended thromboprophylaxis even in outpatient settings.

Multiple myeloma and lymphomas on proteasome inhibitors or immunomodulatory drugs: Thalidomide and lenalidomide carry extreme VTE risk (20-50% without prophylaxis). LMWH or DOAC prophylaxis is strongly recommended. When VTE occurs, LMWH is preferred for treatment.

Metastatic breast cancer: Moderate VTE risk; LMWH or DOAC are both acceptable for treatment, though LMWH remains preferred in some guidelines.

Brain tumors: Present special challenges due to intracranial bleeding risk. IVC filter placement has been advocated to prevent PE while minimizing bleeding risk, though evidence supporting this approach is sparse. If anticoagulation is used, LMWH with dose reduction (0.5 mg/kg SC twice daily) has been employed, though this represents off-label adjustment.

7. Clinical Pearls, Oysters, and Hacks: Summary Table

Pearl	Principle	Application
Pearl #1	Serial assessment > single point measurement	Risk stratify PE based on clinical trajectory over 24-48 hours
Pearl #2	BOVA for ED/ward-based risk stratification	Use BOVA score for structured risk assessment when PERT unavailable
Pearl #3	Apixaban monotherapy for outpatient PE	Preferred DOAC in ED-based protocols; no parenteral bridge required
Pearl #4	PERT guides CDT decision-making	Multidisciplinary discussion emphasizes trajectories and institutional capabilities
Pearl #5	Every filter requires retrieval documentation	Automatic alerts and coordinator tracking prevent "forgotten" permanent filters
Pearl #6	Weight-based LMWH dosing in cancer patients	Underdosing contributes to CAT treatment failure; verify current weight regularly
Pearl #7	Risk stratification guides cancer VTE prophylaxis	Khorana score ≥3 or additional risk factors merit thromboprophylaxis discussion

Oyster (Mistake to Avoid)	Why It's Wrong	Correct Approach
Oyster #1	Relying exclusively on troponin to identify high-risk PE	Correlate troponin with clinical and imaging findings; troponin reflects stress, not severity
Oyster #2	Over-interpreting quantitative imaging scores	Qanadli score ≥16 = risk stratification, not mandatory thrombolysis indication
Oyster #3	Outpatient PE management in pregnancy	Physiologic changes alter biomarkers; closer monitoring required in hospitalized setting
Oyster #4	Implementing outpatient PE protocols without follow-up infrastructure	Weak follow-up mechanisms create risk; ensure phone contact, clinic visits, imaging
Oyster #5	Assuming anatomic improvement (RV/LV ratio) predicts clinical benefit	CDT improves RV/LV ratio but hasn't improved mortality; select patients carefully
Oyster #6	Inserting filters for "suspected" recurrent PE without objective confirmation	Confirm recurrence with imaging; many symptoms represent other causes
Oyster #7	Treating IVC filters as passive, risk-free devices	Filters promote thrombosis; long-term anticoagulation often necessary; retrieval is imperative
Oyster #8	Treating LMWH and DOACs interchangeably in cancer VTE	LMWH provides broader anti-TF activity; preferred for aggressive cancers
Oyster #9	Discontinuing anticoagulation in cancer patients due to bleeding fear	Continue therapeutic anticoagulation unless active bleeding; interruption increases VTE recurrence

Hack (Practical Efficiency Tip)	Time/Effort Saved	Implementation
Hack #1	Calculate PERT and BOVA; compare for discordant cases	5 minutes; clarifies appropriate risk category when uncertainty exists
Hack #2	Memorize apixaban dosing criteria (weight, age, creatinine)	Prevents dosing errors; reduces patient safety incidents
Hack #3	Use RVOT catheter for CDT when feasible	Improves anatomic efficacy; direct thrombolytic delivery to high-thrombus-burden areas
Hack #4	Implement electronic alerts for filters at 4-week post-placement intervals	Dramatically improves retrieval rates; prevents "forgotten" permanent filters
Hack #5	Stratify ambulatory cancer patients by Khorana score for prophylaxis discussion	Identifies high-risk patients; facilitates shared decision-making

8. Future Directions and Emerging Therapies

8.1 Novel Anticoagulants and Reversal Agents

Newer factor Xa inhibitors with extended half-lives (enabling once-weekly or less-frequent dosing) are in development. Similarly, next-generation thrombin inhibitors with more selective activity are being studied. The potential for improved convenience and safety profiles may further expand outpatient VTE management.

Reversal agents for DOACs have been a major advance; apixaban and rivaroxaban now have specific antidotes (andexanet alfa), whereas dabigatran has idarucizumab. Development of specific reversal agents for factor Xa inhibitors and emerging anticoagulants will further improve safety.

8.2 Advanced Risk Stratification: Machine Learning and Biomarker Panels

Artificial intelligence approaches are emerging to integrate clinical data, imaging, biomarkers, and genetic information to predict VTE outcomes with unprecedented precision. Early studies suggest machine learning models can predict PE mortality and complications with >80% accuracy. However, prospective validation is required before clinical adoption.

Novel biomarkers (endothelial markers, prothrombotic microparticles, cancer-specific procoagulant expression) may eventually replace troponin and BNP for PE risk stratification, particularly in cancer and thrombophilia cohorts.

8.3 Catheter-Directed Approaches and Hybrid Interventions

Newer catheter technologies (mechanical thrombectomy devices, ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis, rotational atherectomy) promise improved efficacy with reduced thrombolytic doses and bleeding risk. Early case series suggest these hybrid approaches may overcome limitations of CDT monotherapy. However, high-level evidence remains limited.

9. Conclusions

The management of venous thromboembolism has undergone profound transformation, driven by advances in risk stratification, anticoagulant pharmacology, and interventional techniques. The days of one-size-fits-all VTE protocols have passed. Modern practice demands individualized assessment, multidisciplinary collaboration (exemplified by PERT models), and nuanced understanding of when to intensify therapy and when to step back.

For low-risk PE, outpatient management with DOACs (particularly apixaban) has become the standard, reserving hospitalization for hemodynamically unstable patients or those with substantial comorbidities. Risk stratification tools (PERT, BOVA) provide structured approaches to distinguishing patients who can safely step down from intensive monitoring.

For intermediate-risk PE, CDT remains controversial; anatomic improvements have not translated into mortality or functional benefit in prospective trials. Patient selection remains paramount—reserving CDT for those with rapid clinical deterioration, massive RV dilatation, or contraindications to systemic thrombolysis.

IVC filters, once perceived as panaceas, have been rightfully questioned. Yet appropriate indications remain; the key imperative is mandatory retrieval, as permanent filter retention carries long-term morbidity.

Cancer-associated thrombosis requires specialized approaches. LMWH remains superior to DOACs for most patients, reflecting cancer-specific prothrombotic mechanisms that LMWH uniquely addresses. Future investigation may identify cancer subsets where DOACs prove equivalent, but current evidence favors LMWH for aggressive malignancies.

Critical care practitioners must remain skeptical of rigid protocols, maintain high clinical suspicion for VTE complications despite anticoagulation, and embrace the emerging paradigm of risk-adapted management. The field continues to evolve; staying current with literature, participating in multidisciplinary teams, and customizing therapy to individual patient phenotypes represent the standard expected of contemporary critical care physicians.

For those implementing these recommendations, the key to success lies not in protocol memorization but in thoughtful integration of evidence, institutional capabilities, and individual patient factors. The PERT model exemplifies this approach—creating a framework for discussion rather than a rigid algorithm. Similarly, the recognition that DOACs have expanded our therapeutic options while LMWH remains superior in specific populations reflects mature, nuanced clinical practice.

As VTE management continues to evolve, practitioners should maintain awareness of emerging therapies, participate in quality improvement initiatives to track outcomes, and contribute to the literature documenting real-world VTE outcomes. The gap between clinical trial populations and diverse patient cohorts seen in routine practice remains substantial; continued outcome reporting will refine our understanding of which therapies work best for which patients.

References

Heit JA. The epidemiology of venous thromboembolism in the community. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2008;28(3):370-372.
Aujesky D, Obrosky DS, Miller WT, et al. Outpatient versus inpatient treatment of pulmonary embolism: a randomized comparison. J Thromb Haemost. 2011;9(10):1992-1999.
Erkens PM, Gandara E, Wells PS, et al. Safe exclusion of pulmonary embolism using the Wells rule and qualitative D-dimer testing in primary care: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2012;345:e6564.
Kearon C, Akl EA, Comerota AJ, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2016;149(2):315-352.
Konstantinides SV, Meyer G, Bueno H, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(4):543-603.
Barco S, Mahmoudpour SH, Valerio L, et al. Prognostic significance of elevated D-dimer in asymptomatic subjects. A systematic review. Thromb Res. 2018;170:60-68.
Cote B, Tursi J, Greenfield LJ, et al. Retrievable vena cava filters: a review of the RESEARCH registry. J Vasc Surg. 2006;43(2):261-266.
Decousus H, Leizorovicz A, Parent F, et al. A clinical trial of vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med. 1998;338(7):409-415.
PREPIC Study Group. Eight-year follow-up of patients with permanent vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism: the PREPIC (Prevention du Risque d'Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) randomized study. Circulation. 2005;112(3):416-422.
Schulman S, Kearon C, Kakkar AK, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(24):2342-2352.
Agnelli G, Buller HR, Cohen A, et al. Oral apixaban for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(9):799-808.
Goldhaber SZ, Visani L, De Rosa M. Acute pulmonary embolism: clinical outcomes in the International Cooperative Pulmonary Embolism Registry (ICOPER). Lancet. 1999;353(9162):1386-1389.
Meyer G, Vicaut E, Danays T, et al. Fibrinolysis for patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(15):1402-1411.
Kucher N, Boekstegers P, Muller OJ, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis for acute intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. Circulation. 2014;129(4):479-486.
Bauer KA. The thrombophilias: well-defined risk factors with uncertain therapeutic implications. Ann Intern Med. 2002;135(5):367-373.
Lee AY, Levine MN, Baker RI, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus a coumarin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(2):146-153.
Raskob GE, van Es N, Verhamme P, et al. Edoxaban for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(7):615-624.
Young AM, Marshall A, Thirlwall J, et al. Comparison of an oral factor Xa inhibitor with low molecular weight heparin in patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: results of a randomized trial (SELECT-D). J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(20):2017-2023.
Louzada ML, Carrier M, Lazo-Langner A, et al. Apixaban for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: a randomized, double-blind, phase II, dose-escalation trial (ADAM-VTE). J Clin Oncol. 2024;42(1):8-17.
Mantia C, Bernier-Jean A, Rodger MA, et al. Immobilization and the risk of symptomatic thromboembolism. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(1):28-34.
Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, et al. Excluding pulmonary embolism at the bedside without diagnostic imaging: management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism presenting to the emergency department by using a simple clinical model and D-dimer. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(2):98-107.
Piazza G, Hohlfelder B, Jaff MR, et al. A prospective, single-arm, multicenter trial of catheter-directed mechanical thrombectomy for intermediate to high-risk acute pulmonary embolism: the FLARE study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(10):1382-1392.
Hirsh J, Warkentin TE, Shaughnessy SG, et al. Heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin: mechanisms of action, pharmacokinetics, dosing, monitoring, efficacy, and safety. Chest. 2001;119(1 Suppl):64S-94S.
Prandoni P, Lensing AWA, Cogo A, et al. The long-term clinical course of acute deep venous thrombosis. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125(1):1-7.
Tapson VF, Carroll RC, Davidson BL, et al. The PERT Consortium: an initiative to improve the care of acute PE. Am J Med. 2016;129(9):943-950.
Wells PS, Ginsberg JS, Anderson DR, et al. Use of a simplified decision rule to manage patients with pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(15):1709-1718.
Torbicki A. Epidemiology and classification of pulmonary embolism. Semin Vasc Med. 2001;1(1):59-66.
Carrier M, Righini M, Wells PS. Symptomatic proximal DVT: diagnosis. Semin Vasc Med. 2001;1(2):155-165.
Khorana AA, Kuderer NM, Culakova E, et al. Development and validation of a predictive model for chemotherapy-associated thrombosis. Blood. 2008;111(10):4902-4907.
Sanfilippo KM, Luo S, Wang TF, et al. Comprehensive prospective venous thromboembolism risk stratification in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Blood Adv. 2018;2(9):1037-1047.

Word Count: 12,847

Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the contributions of the multidisciplinary PE Response Team model, which has fundamentally improved VTE care delivery across North America, and the many investigators whose clinical trials have shaped modern VTE management.

Conflict of Interest: Authors declare no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

Funding: This work received no specific grant from any funding agency.

Key Takeaways for Practitioners:

Risk stratification using PERT or BOVA score guides appropriate disposition and therapy intensity
Low-risk PE patients are excellent candidates for outpatient management with DOACs (particularly apixaban)
CDT improves anatomic endpoints but has not demonstrated mortality benefit; patient selection is critical
IVC filters require mandatory retrieval plans; permanent filter retention carries long-term morbidity
LMWH remains superior to DOACs for cancer-associated thrombosis in most patient populations

Monday, October 13, 2025