scholarly journals Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters for Venous Thromboembolism

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Han Ni ◽  
Lei Lei Win
Keyword(s):  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Filter Placement ◽  
Ivc Filters ◽  
Vena Cava Filters ◽  
Attractive Option ◽  
Venous Thromboembolic ◽  
Retrievable Ivc Filters

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are used as an alternative to anticoagulants for prevention of fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) in venous thromboembolic disorders. Retrievable IVC filters have become an increasingly attractive option due to the long-term risks of permanent filter placement. These devices are shown to be technically feasible in insertion and retrieval percutaneously while providing protection from PE. Nevertheless, there are complications and failed retrievals with these retrievable filters. The aim of the paper is to review the retrievable filters and their efficacy, safety, and retrievability.

Retrieval of Bard Simon Nitinol inferior vena cava filters: Approaches, technical successes, complications, and clinical outcomes

2021 ◽  
pp. 026835552092598
Author(s):  
Jacob J Bundy ◽  
Jeffrey Forris Beecham Chick ◽  
Ravi N Srinivasa ◽  
Kyle J Cooper ◽  
Joseph J Gemmete ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava Filters ◽  
Vena Cava Filters ◽  
Venous Thromboembolic Events ◽  
Venous Thromboembolic ◽  
Vena Cava Thrombosis ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava Thrombosis

Objective The Simon Nitinol filter is a bi-level filtration device designed for permanent implantation that is no longer commercially available, but may result in similar complications to current commercially available long term indwelling temporary or permanent filters. Complications related to indwelling inferior vena cava filters include inferior vena cava thrombosis, inferior vena cava penetration, filter migration, and filter fracture. There is a paucity of reports describing the technical aspects related to retrieval of Simon Nitinol filters. Materials and methods This study consisted of five patients with Simon Nitinol filters and describes the indication for retrieval, the retrieval techniques used to remove the filters, technical success, complications, and clinical course. Results The indications for retrieval included: abdominal pain ( n = 2; 40%), iliocaval thrombosis ( n = 1; 20%), identification of an intracardiac filter fragment ( n = 1; 20%), and recurrent venous thromboembolic events ( n = 1; 20%). Retrieval techniques included: biopsy forceps ( n = 3; 60%), excimer laser extraction sheaths ( n = 3; 60%), hangman modified loop snares ( n = 3; 60%), rigid endobronchial forceps ( n = 2; 40%), and balloon deflection ( n = 2; 40%). All filters were successfully retrieved. One patient developed a post-procedural intramuscular hematoma near the site of right internal jugular sheath placement. Conclusions Simon Nitinol filters may be retrieved safely and effectively using advanced inferior vena cava filter retrieval techniques.

scholarly journals Safety and Outcomes of Permanent and Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters in the Oncology Population

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Saba S. Shaikh ◽  
Suneel D. Kamath ◽  
Debashis Ghosh ◽  
Robert J. Lewandowski ◽  
Brandon J. McMahon
Keyword(s):  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Absolute Contraindication ◽  
Filter Placement ◽  
Ivc Filters ◽  
Vena Cava Filters ◽  
Recurrent Vte ◽  
Clinically Significant

Background. The role for inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in the oncology population is poorly defined. Objectives. Our primary endpoint was to determine the rate of filter placement in cancer patients without an absolute contraindication to anticoagulation and the rate of recurrent VTE after filter placement in both retrievable and permanent filter groups. Patients/Methods. A single-institution, retrospective study of patients with active malignancies and acute VTE who received a retrievable or permanent IVC filter between 2009-2013. Demographics and outcomes were confirmed on independent chart review. Cost data were obtained using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Results. 179 patients with retrievable filters and 207 patients with permanent filters were included. Contraindication to anticoagulation was the most cited reason for filter placement; however, only 76% of patients with retrievable filters and 69% of patients with permanent filters had an absolute contraindication to anticoagulation. 20% of patients with retrievable filters and 24% of patients with permanent filters had recurrent VTE. The median time from filter placement to death was 8.9 and 3.2 months in the retrievable and permanent filter groups, respectively. The total cost of retrievable filters and permanent filters was $2,883,389 and $3,722,688, respectively. Conclusions. The role for IVC filters in cancer patients remains unclear as recurrent VTE is common and time from filter placement to death is short. Filter placement is costly and has a clinically significant complication rate, especially for retrievable filters. More data from prospective, randomized trials are needed to determine the utility of IVC filters in cancer patients.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Case Report: Filtering the data on IVC filters

F1000Research ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 795
Author(s):  
Hina Khan ◽  
Usman Jilani
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Thromboembolic Disease ◽  
Ivc Filter ◽  
Filter Placement ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Ivc Filters ◽  
Venous Thromboembolic

Venous thromboembolic disease is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. First line therapy for thromboembolic disease remains anticoagulation. However, certain populations warrant consideration of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter. This case report discusses an example of a patient who presented with an acute pulmonary embolism and highlights the utilization of the inferior vena cava (IVC) filter as patient therapy. Thus, in this case report we will review the indications for IVC filter placement and compare the compliance of IVC filter placement to established guidelines of use.

scholarly journals Complications of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: A Retrospective Comparison of Denali and Option-ELITE Filters

2018 ◽  
Vol 02 (03) ◽  
pp. 149-154
Author(s):  
Jessica Hightower ◽  
Richard Alexander ◽  
Evan Lehrman ◽  
Ryan Kohlbrenner ◽  
Nicholas Fidelman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Filter Placement ◽  
Ivc Filters ◽  
Vena Cava Filters ◽  
Retrospective Comparison ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
And Migration

Abstract Purpose To compare the complication rate of the Denali and Option-ELITE inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. Materials and Methods All patients who had a Denali or Option-ELITE IVC filter placed between March 2014 and March 2016 were retrospectively identified from the electronic medical records. Of the 245 IVC filters placed, the positions of 93 devices (21 Denali and 72 Option-ELITE) were documented on follow-up computed tomography (CT) examinations obtained for reasons unrelated to filter placement. In situations where multiple CT studies were obtained after placement, each study was reviewed, for a total of 200 examinations. Images were assessed for filter complication including caval wall penetration by filter components, associated damage to pericaval tissues, filter tilt, migration, and fracture. Results Penetration of at least one strut was observed in 13% of all filters imaged by CT, (Denali: 14%; Option-ELITE: 13%; p = 1.00). No patients had damage to pericaval tissues or documented symptoms attributed to penetration. Neither the Denali nor the Option-ELITE filters demonstrated significant tilt (> 15 degrees of tilt), migration, or fracture. Compared with Denali; the Option-ELITE filter demonstrated an increasing strut penetration rate with longer indwell times (z = –3.67, p < 0.01). Conclusions No significant difference was observed between the rates of caval penetration of the Denali and Option-ELITE IVC filters assessed by CT. Additionally, no findings of filter fracture or migration were noted, suggesting that the Denali filter is non-inferior to the Option-ELITE filter with respect to penetration, fracture, tilt, and migration. The Option-ELITE filter demonstrated a time-dependent tendency toward greater strut penetration with longer indwell times.

Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters Are Rarely Removed

2009 ◽  
Vol 75 (5) ◽  
pp. 426-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott F. Gaspard ◽  
Donald J. Gaspard
Keyword(s):  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Ivc Filter ◽  
Filter Placement ◽  
Ivc Filters ◽  
Vena Cava Filters ◽  
Successful Removal

There has been an increasing nationwide trend of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement over the past 3 years. Most of these have been the newer, removable variety. Although these are marketed as retrievable, few are removed. The purpose of this study was to examine the practice pattern of IVC filter placement at Huntington Hospital. This study is a retrospective chart review of all IVC filter placements and removals between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2006. The primary data points include indication for placement, major complications (migration, caval thrombosis, pulmonary embolus [PE]), attempted removal, and successful removal. Three hundred ten patients received IVC filters at our institution during this period. Eighty-four were placed in 2004, 95 in 2005, and 131 in 2006. Of those, only 12 (3.9%) were documented permanent filters, whereas the remainder (298) were removable. Of the retrievable filters placed, only 11 (3.7%) underwent successful removal. There were four (1.3%) instances in which the filter could not be removed as a result of thrombus present within the filter and two (0.67%) in which removal was aborted as a result of technical difficulty. Our use of IVC filters has increased steadily over the last 3 years. Despite the rise in use of “removable” filter devices, few are ever retrieved. Although IVC filter insertion appears an effective method of PE prevention, it comes at a cost, both physiological and monetary. It would be wise to devise more stringent criteria to identify those patients in the various populations who truly require filter placement and to be cautious in altering our indications for placement.

scholarly journals Role of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval in Patients on Chronic Anticoagulation Therapy

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Savannah Fletcher ◽  
Adam Plotnik ◽  
Ravi N. Srinivasa ◽  
Jeffrey Forris Beecham Chick ◽  
John M. Moriarty
Keyword(s):  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava Filter ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Anticoagulation Therapy ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Vena Cava Filter ◽  
Venous Thromboembolic

Abstract Purpose of review Describe the role of inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) retrieval in patients on chronic anticoagulation given the overlap of these treatment options in the management of patients with venous thromboembolic disease. Recent findings Despite the increase in IVCF retrievals since the Food and Drug Administration safety communications in 2010 and 2014, retrieval rates remain low. Previous studies have shown that longer filter dwell times are associated with greater risk for filter complications and more difficulty with filter retrievals. Recent findings suggest that complications are more frequent in the first 30 days after placement. Summary The decision to retrieve an optional IVCF is individualized and requires diligent follow-up with consistent re-evaluation of the need for the indwelling IVCF, particularly in those on long-term anticoagulation therapy.

Long-Term Outcome of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement in Patients Undergoing Gastric Bypass

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (7) ◽  
pp. 946-949 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas J. Gargiulo ◽  
David J. O'Connor ◽  
Frank J. Veith ◽  
Evan C. Lipsitz ◽  
Pratt Vemulapalli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Bypass ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava Filter ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Vena Cava Filter ◽  
Term Outcome ◽  
Filter Placement ◽  
Long Term Outcome

Tips and tricks for retrieval of permanent TRAPEASE® filters for inferior vena cava

Vascular ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 648-652 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albeir Y Mousa ◽  
Shadi AbuHalimah ◽  
Michael Yacoub ◽  
Iqra Sheikh ◽  
Ali F AbuRahma
Keyword(s):  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Tips And Tricks ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava Filters ◽  
Vena Cava Filters

The placement of permanent inferior vena cava filters has definite indications and some filters have been shown to be more problematic in the long term than others. This report outlines the technique for TRAPEASE® filter removal in two patients. The first filter was retrieved four weeks after insertion and the second filter was retrieved 14 months after it was inserted at another institution. A planned approach for retrieval is described in these case reports.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document