Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Vena cava filters have been in use for decades to prevent pulmonary embolization from deep venous thrombosis. These filters have been shown to be effective, with fairly low rates of filter migration, fracture and thrombosis. However considering that filters remain in situ for the life of the patient and that studies do not show increased longevity in patients with filters, any complications from filters are significant concerns. In addition, often patients require filters for only temporary indications, e.g. contraindication for anticoagulation because of impending procedures, or for only a transient risk period, as in trauma or pregnant patients. In these cases, removable filters may be more appealing. This review will examine the different types of removable filters and the indications in which removable filters may have an advantage over permanent filters.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1160/TH04-06-0399 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!