Significant Caval Penetration by the Celect Inferior Vena Cava Filter: Attributable to Filter Design? (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR, 2015
To investigate strut penetration in patients with Celect filters, specifically local complications and association with breakthrough pulmonary embolism (PE) or retrieval failure. A retrospective single-center study was conducted to evaluate patients who received Celect filters between January 2007 and May 2013. A total of 595 filters were placed during the study period. Primary indications included thromboembolic disease (93%) and primary surgical prophylaxis (7%). Complications and retrieval data were assessed by computed tomography (CT) and electronic medical records. A total of 193 patients underwent follow-up abdominal CT at a mean follow-up interval of 176.2 days (range, 0-1,739 d). The rate of strut penetration more than 3 mm outside the caval wall was 28.5% (n = 55). One patient had CT evidence of clinically major strut penetration (1.8%) with strut compression of the right ureter causing hydronephrosis. Indwelling filter time longer than 100 days was associated with strut pe...
CardioVascular and Interventional …, 2010
Symptomatic caval injury is rare after inferior vena cava (IVC) filter insertion. A 39-year-old woman developed acute abdominal pain after uneventful placement of a retrievable Option IVC Filter (Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada). Two days after placement, computed tomography showed a right-sided retroperitoneal hematoma, and three-dimensional C-arm rotational venography confirmed limb penetration beyond the caval wall. This is the first report of this complication despite two recent studies highlighting the safety profile of this relatively new filter.
Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 2010
The present report describes the safe retrieval of caudally migrated optional inferior vena cava (IVC) filters with significant IVC penetration. Three patients had optional IVC filters placed for deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary emboli and contraindications for anticoagulation. Subsequent imaging showed caudal migration and penetration of the filter legs through the IVC wall. All filters were removed without major complications. One patient experienced abdominal pain after filter removal, which required no treatment. Caudal migration of optional filters with IVC wall penetration by the filter legs may be more common with new filter designs in which the secondary and primary struts are separated. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2010; 21:923-926 Abbreviations: DVT ϭ deep vein thrombosis, IVC ϭ inferior vena cava, PE ϭ pulmonary emboli From the
Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders, 2020
Objective: We established a program for retrieval of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters within our hospital system. When percutaneous retrieval fails, we only recommend open surgical removal for symptoms and other complications. We examined our outcomes with conservative management of unsuccessful percutaneous retrieval and open surgical removal for symptomatic/complicated IVC filters. Methods: All patients with history of IVC filter placement who were referred to us for retrieval between 2010 and 2016 were evaluated. Before retrieval, patients were evaluated for risk of future venous thromboembolic events and ongoing need for IVC filtration. Asymptomatic patients with unsuccessful percutaneous filter retrieval were recommended to have annual follow-up with plain abdominal radiographs and to take daily low-dose aspirin. Patients with symptoms referable to the indwelling filter and those with complications were offered open surgical removal. Results: There were 213 patients with a history of IVC filter placement who underwent 220 percutaneous attempts for retrieving 214 IVC filters (four patients had two attempts, one patient had three attempts). Technical success in percutaneously retrieving the filter was 180 of 214 (84.1%) at a median of 5.5 months (interquartile range [IQR], 3.5-9.2) from implant. The median filter dwell time was significantly longer in unsuccessful compared with successful retrieval attempts (8.3 months [IQR, 4.3-15.1 months] vs 5.5 months [IQR, 3.2-8.7 months]; P ¼ .011). Of the 34 filters in 33 patients that could not be retrieved percutaneously, all had either significant filter barb penetration through the caval wall or a tilt angle of greater than 15. The majority of patients (67%) remained asymptomatic without any further complications over a mean follow-up of 24 months (IQR, 12-50 months). No asymptomatic patients developed symptoms or complications over the follow-up period. Two of the five patients who were symptomatic underwent open surgical removal via minilaparotomy. An additional six patients who failed percutaneous retrieval at other institutions were referred to us for open surgical removal owing to symptoms or complications. Technical success for all open surgical removal of IVC filters was 100%. All patients had resolution of their symptoms after percutaneous or open surgical removal. Conclusions: Asymptomatic patients with unsuccessful percutaneous IVC filter retrieval seem to have low complications in midterm follow-up despite significant filter strut penetration. Without symptoms or other complications, such patients do not require referral for open surgical filter removal. Symptomatic patients can expect low morbidity and resolution of symptoms after percutaneous or open surgical removal. Further studies are needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of routinely removing asymptomatic IVC filters.
Incomplete Caval Protection Following Suprarenal Caval Filter Placement
Angiology, 2000
Inferior vena cava filters are increasingly utilized to prevent pulmonary emboli origi nating from lower extremity, pelvis, or caval thromboses. Unique indications exist for filter placement in the suprarenal portion of the vena cava. The largest reported experi ence in suprarenal position has involved the use of the Greenfield filter. Although unique in design, little differences have been described between the stainless steel and titanium version of this device. The authors present a case report of incomplete caval protection after successful placement of a stainless steel Greenfield filter in the suprarenal cava. Subtle differences between the titanium and the stainless steel Greenfield filter may exist and should be taken into consideration for placement in the suprarenal cava. Physiologic conditions supporting this premise are described. Further investigation between the two filter types appears justified.
Complications related to inferior vena cava filters: a single-center experience
Annals of vascular …, 2010
We reviewed our experience with the different types of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters used over 4 years for the incidence of complications and correlated this with the type of filter used. This is a retrospective study involving chart reviews of all the patients who received IVC filters ...
Incidence and implications of a left inferior vena cava on IVC filter placement
Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging, 2005
Objective: To assess the prevalence and ability to detect a left inferior vena cava (IVC) during venography prior to filter placement and its implications for device implantation. Materials and Methods : Over 58 months, patients referred for an IVC filter were prospectively evaluated for a left IVC by performing cavography injecting into the left iliac vein, left renal venography, or CT scan correlation. Additionally, cavograms of patients receiving filters over the four previous years were reviewed to assess the adequacy of detecting these anomalies based on the degree of opacification of the left iliac vein in relation to the position of the catheter tip. Results: Prospective evaluation for a left IVC was adequate in 477 of 503 patients. Retrospective evaluation using CT scans was possible in another 14. Left IVCs were detected in 5 patients (1%). Three patients with duplications were managed with either 2 filters, a suprarenal filter, or a bird's nest filter straddling both cavas. Two patients with isolated left IVCs received a single filter. Of 62 retrospectively reviewed cavograms, the left iliac vein was inadequately opacified in 69% when the catheter was in the low IVC (53 patients) and 71% when it was in the right iliac vein (7 patients). Conclusions: Low caval or right iliac vein injections infrequently provide sufficient reflux into the left iliac vein to assess for a left IVC. Left iliac vein catheterization is easy and will readily provide this information. Modifications in filter placement technique may be necessary when caval anomalies are present.