CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-08-18). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 1 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.7.
Verdict No. 2719 · Search date 2026-08-18 · Methodology v0.7

Retrievable inferior vena cava filter added to anticoagulation,
does it really help with Reduced three-month symptomatic pulmonary-embolism recurrence in anticoagulatable severe acute pulmonary embolism?

30-Second Summary
D
Evidence Grade D · 34 · Safety warning
Adding a retrievable filter did not reduce recurrence in anticoagulatable acute pulmonary embolism
Insertion can cause bleeding, vascular injury, migration, penetration, thrombosis, and retrieval failure. PREPIC2 reported three filter thromboses and requires specialist placement and retrieval follow-up.
What the
research shows
The grade is D with 34 points. In PREPIC2, symptomatic pulmonary embolism recurred by three months in 6/200 (3.0%, all fatal) with a filter versus 3/199 (1.5%, two fatal) with anticoagulation alone, RR 2.00 (95% CI 0.51 to 7.89; P=.50). There was no benefit, but the very wide interval excludes neither substantial benefit nor substantial harm, so this is D rather than F.
What the
ads claim
The device is designed to trap embolizing clot, but that physical function did not translate into fewer recurrences when added to modern full-dose anticoagulation in this population.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • A retrievable inferior vena cava filter is implanted to trap clot traveling from the lower limbs.
  • Every PREPIC2 participant received at least six months of full-dose anticoagulation, with retrieval planned at three months.
  • Insertion succeeded in 193 patients, and three filter thromboses were reported.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2719 · D 34
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

This open-label, blinded-endpoint trial at 17 French hospitals randomized 399 patients, 200 to filter and 199 to control. Only one participant lacked primary-outcome information and was treated as missing. Public and nonprofit grants were combined with free filters from ALN Implants Chirurgicaux. The earlier PREPIC trial used permanent filters in a broader proximal-DVT population and was not counted as independent replication of this retrievable-filter acute-PE question. Allocation used a central 24-hour interactive voice-response system that ensured concealment. Procedural participant masking was infeasible, while all efficacy and safety outcomes were reviewed by a central committee blinded to assignment. All analyses used the intention-to-treat population defined as all randomized patients, and unavailable outcomes were treated as missing. The prespecified three-month fatal or symptomatic nonfatal recurrent pulmonary-embolism endpoint matched NCT00457158.

02

Why this is classified as D (34)

A well-conducted hard-outcome trial found no benefit, but its interval retained substantial benefit, giving D with 34 points.

Counterpoint. Patients with contraindications to anticoagulation, for whom a filter may be the only option, were excluded.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — Cross-checked PREPIC2, its protocol, and NCT00457158 for central allocation, blinded adjudication, ITT and missingness, prespecified endpoint, mixed support, and the wide confidence interval

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointHHard endpoint - actual events such as death
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI1Mixed funding sources
Effect sizeE0Null
PrecisionC0The confidence interval leaves room for benefit

The scoring table and the verdict agree (D).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Reduced symptomatic pulmonary-embolism recurrence at three monthsDRR was 2.00 (0.51 to 7.89), null and imprecise.
Reduced recurrence when anticoagulation is contraindicated?This population was excluded from the trial.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Study 1Multicenter open-label randomized trial with blinded endpoint adjudication1French public and nonprofit grants; filters supplied free by ALNFatal or symptomatic nonfatal recurrent pulmonary embolism at three months6/200 (3.0%) versus 3/199 (1.5%), RR 2.00 (95% CI 0.51 to 7.89), P=.50Direct null hard-outcome evidence from one imprecise trial
§

Receipt — 1 References

All 1 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-18).

Mismetti P, Laporte S, Pellerin O, et al. Effect of a Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter Plus Anticoagulation vs Anticoagulation Alone on Risk of Recurrent Pulmonary Embolism: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2015;313(16):1627-1635. PMID: 25919526. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.3780. NCT00457158.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-08-18 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Retrievable inferior vena cava filter added to anticoagulation x recurrent severe acute pulmonary embolism Evidence Grade D card
[Chamgap] Retrievable inferior vena cava filter added to anticoagulation x recurrent severe acute pulmonary embolism — Evidence Grade D·34. 1 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/heart/retrievable-ivc-filter-anticoagulated-severe-pulmonary-embolism-recurrence/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.