scholarly journals Retrievable IVC Filters: Comprehensive Review of Device-related Complications and Advanced Retrieval Techniques

Radiographics ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 1236-1245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kush R. Desai ◽  
Mithil B. Pandhi ◽  
Stephen M. Seedial ◽  
Martin F. Errea ◽  
Riad Salem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
Ivc Filters ◽  
Retrievable Ivc Filters

Impact of Dwell Time of Retrievable IVC Filters on IVC Lumen Diameter: A Series of 36 Cases

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 ◽  
pp. 408.e11-408.e14
Author(s):  
Xian-Guo Liu ◽  
Yong-Xiang Zhou ◽  
Jing-Jun Zhang ◽  
Shi-Fu Ye ◽  
Feng Shou
Keyword(s):  
Dwell Time ◽  
Lumen Diameter ◽  
Ivc Filters ◽  
Retrievable Ivc Filters

The infrequent removal of retrievable IVC filters

2013 ◽  
Vol 131 (3) ◽  
pp. 277-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joelle El-Amm ◽  
Dalia A. Mobarek ◽  
Lena Furmark ◽  
Anita Aggarwal ◽  
Charles Faselis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ivc Filters ◽  
Retrievable Ivc Filters

Single Institution Experience with Inferior Vena Cava Filters.

Blood ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 106 (11) ◽  
pp. 914-914
Author(s):  
Nikhil Bhalla ◽  
Anca Bulgaru ◽  
Lynn Church ◽  
Dinesh Kapur ◽  
Herb Lustberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Ivc Filter ◽  
Ivc Filters ◽  
Additional Surgery ◽  
Clot Burden ◽  
Retrievable Ivc Filters

Abstract Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are used in patients (pts.) with Deep Venous Thrombosis (DVT) to prevent pulmonary embolism (PE) when anticoagulation cannot be administered. The purpose of this study was to analyze the use and outcomes of IVC filters in a community hospital. We reviewed the medical records of all pts. who had IVC filters implanted at William W. Backus Hospital between May 2003 and May 2005. Follow up information was obtained up to August 2005 by mailings from the attending physicians. 125 IVC filters were implanted in 121 pts., ages 18 to 93, with 61 males and 60 females. The indications for implantation were contraindication as follows: to anticoagulation in 72 pts. (58%), up coming surgical procedures in 33 pts. (26%), and severity of clot burden in 20 pts. (16%). 123 (98%) filters were deployed into an infrarenal position and 2 into a suprarenal position due to extensive clot in the IVC. Of the 105 filters that were not retrieved 60 were Gunther Tulip (GT) retrievable IVC filters, 42 were Cordis Trapease (CT) permanent IVC filters, 2 were stainless steel Greenfield IVC filters, and 1 was a Cordis Optease (CO) IVC filter. Of the 20 retrieved filters 19 were GT retrievable IVC filters and 1 was a CO IVC filter. Of the 125 filters, 74 were intended to be permanent filters (59%) and 51 (41%) were inserted with intention of retrieval. 31/51 (60%) were eventually not retrieved because of various reasons: need for additional surgery (12), poor pulmonary reserve (5), high-risk of bleeding (5), severity of clot burden (4), short life expectancy (4), and extremely high risk of recurrent DVT (1). Short-term and long-term anticoagulation was used in conjunction with the IVC filters in 21 and 81 pts. respectively. 38 (31%) of the 121 pts. experienced recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), 37 developed symptomatic DVT and 1 had a symptomatic PE. 3/20 (15%) of the pts. who had their filters retrieved developed recurrent DVT (18, 22, and 76 days after filter retrieval) compared with 34/105 (32%) pts. who had permanent filters. The only objectively documented symptomatic PE occurred in a pt. with a permanent filter. This pt. had a recurrent PE 7 months post GT IVC filter insertion diagnosed by chest CT scan with PE protocol. Complications were as follows: 1 pt. had transient hypertension immediately after IVC insertion and 1 pt. developed a transient low-grade fever after retrieval. 1 pt. developed retroperitoneal hematoma upon retrieval 75 days after implantation as documented by an IVC Gram and this pt. recovered without need for any intervention and there were no adverse clinical consequences. The implantation periods ranged from 2 to 104 days in the 20 retrieved filters with mean/median of 20/9 days. 4 of the 20 retrieved filters (20%) contained trapped emboli and none of these pts. subsequently developed PE. The GT retrievable IVC filter is now the filter of choice at our institution and can be implanted permanently or with retrieval in mind. Conclusion: Retrievable filters were removed up to 104 days post insertion in this series of pts. and the incidence of complications was negligible. Retrievable IVC filters may be substituted for permanent IVC filters to preserve the option of retrieval, and retrieval of filters beyond 3 months post implantation is feasible and should be studied further.

Inferior Vena Cava Filter - Appropriate Use and Retrieval

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 5912-5912
Author(s):  
Rena Shah ◽  
Anita Turk ◽  
Bilal Rahim ◽  
Waddah Arafat ◽  
Moniba Nazeef ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Ivc Filter ◽  
Appropriate Use ◽  
Filter Placement ◽  
Ivc Filters ◽  
Retrievable Ivc Filters

Abstract Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, first introduced in 1998, have been utilized to reduce risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) in the setting of an inability to anticoagulate patients. The use of IVC filters has increased and continues to rise, especially with the introduction of retrievable IVC filters. Since their initial introduction, guidelines have been developed on the appropriate use of IVC filters. According to the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the use of an IVC filter is limited to patients with an absolute contraindication to therapeutic anticoagulation or failure or complication of anticoagulation in the setting an acute proximal venous thrombus. Relative indications for IVC filter placement include high clot burden in setting of low cardiopulmonary reserve, high risk patients, or severe trauma without documented thrombosis. In 2010, the FDA announced a safety communication recommending removal of retrievable IVC filters due to reports of several adverse clinical outcomes associated with retained filters including thrombus formation, recurrent PE, filter migration, erosion or perforation through the IVC wall, and filter fracture with fragment embolization. In 2014, the FDA recommended removal of the IVC filter within 2 months after filter placement if the patient's risk of thrombosis had passed. In this retrospective analysis of IVC filter management, we reviewed indications for placement according to current guidelines as set by the ACCP, initiation of appropriate anticoagulation, complication rates, and retrieval rates. In addition, we compared the data prior to the FDA recommendations in late 2014 and data after the recommendations to determine if there was a change in practice. After reviewing 179 patients, 89 patients in 2014 and 90 patients in 2015, who underwent IVC filter placement, only 81% (N=145) of patients had appropriate indications for IVC filter placement and 30% (N=54) of patients had inappropriate anticoagulation after IVC filter placement, given as prophylactic dosing of low molecular weight heparin. A comparison of retrieval rates prior to and after the FDA warning, showed a 19% (60% in 2014 vs 79% in 2015) improvement in IVC filter removals. There was an 11% complication rate, mainly related to IVC filter related acute DVT or IVC occlusion. A root cause analysis specifically for inappropriate IVC filter placement and appropriate anticoagulation and determined that familiarity of the guidelines and non-evidence based recommendations from consultants were major factors. Based on the analysis, we next plan to utilize the electronic health record system to help clinicians understand indications and when to initiate appropriate anticoagulation, with the opportunity for hematology consultants to be involved in situations that do not clearly fit within published guidelines. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract No. 106: Removal of fractured retrievable IVC filters: Feasibility and outcomes

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. S47
Author(s):  
L.V. Dinglasan ◽  
S.W. Stavropoulos ◽  
R. Shlansky-Goldberg ◽  
S. Trerotola ◽  
J. Mondschein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ivc Filters ◽  
Retrievable Ivc Filters

scholarly journals Inferior vena cava filter – comprehensive overview of current indications, techniques, complications and retrieval rates

VASA ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (6) ◽  
pp. 449-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xin Li ◽  
Ihab Haddadin ◽  
Gordon McLennan ◽  
Behzad Farivar ◽  
Daniel Staub ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Current Data ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Ivc Filter ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Filter Placement ◽  
Ivc Filters ◽  
Retrievable Ivc Filters

Summary: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter has been used to manage patients with pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis. Its ease of use and the expansion of relative indications have led to a dramatic increase in IVC filter placement. However, IVC filters have been associated with a platitude of complications. Therefore, there exists a need to examine the current indications and identify the patient population at risk. In this paper, we comprehensively reviewed the current indications and techniques of IVC filter placement. Further, we examined the various complications associated with either permanent or retrievable IVC filters. Lastly, we examined the current data on filter retrieval.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document