Indications and Outcomes of Open Inferior Vena Cava Filter Removal (original) (raw)
Related papers
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.
Procedural complications of inferior vena cava filter retrieval, an illustrated review
CVIR Endovascular, 2020
Annually, approximately 65,000 inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are placed in the United States (Ahmed et al., J Am Coll Radiol 15:1553–1557, 2018). Approximately 35% of filters are eventually retrieved (Angel et al., J Vasc Interv Radiol 22: 1522–1530 e1523, 2011). Complications during filter retrieval depend heavily on technique and filter position. In this paper, we review risk factors and incidence of complications during IVC filter removal. We also discuss ways these complications could be avoided and the appropriate management if they occur.
The Israel Medical Association journal : IMAJ, 2016
BACKGROUND Various vena cava filters (VCF) are designed with the ability to be retrieved percutaneously. Yet, despite this option most of them remain in the inferior vena cava (IVC). OBJECTIVES To report our experience in the placement and retrieval of three different types of VCFs, and to compare the indications for their insertion and retrieval as reported in the literature. METHODS During a 5 year period three types of retrievable VCF (ALN, OptEase, and Celect) were inserted in 306 patients at the Rabin Medical Center (Beilinson and Hasharon hospitals). Indications, retrieval rates, median time to retrieval, success and complication rates were viewed and assessed in the three groups of filter types and were compared with the data of similar studies in the literature. RESULTS Of the 306 VCFs inserted, 31 (10.1%) were retrieved with equal distribution in the three groups. In most patients the reason for filter insertion was venous thromboembolic events (VTE) and contraindications t...
Advanced Techniques for Removal of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology, 2012
Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have proven valuable for the prevention of primary or recurrent pulmonary embolism in selected patients with or at high risk for venous thromboembolic disease. Their use has become commonplace, and the numbers implanted increase annually. During the last 3 years, in the United States, the percentage of annually placed optional filters, i.e., filters than can remain as permanent filters or potentially be retrieved, has consistently exceeded that of permanent filters. In parallel, the complications of long-or short-term filtration have become increasingly evident to physicians, regulatory agencies, and the public. Most filter removals are uneventful, with a high degree of success. When routine filter-retrieval techniques prove unsuccessful, progressively more advanced tools and skill sets must be used to enhance filter-retrieval success. These techniques should be used with caution to avoid damage to the filter or cava during IVC retrieval. This review describes the complex techniques for filter retrieval, including use of additional snares, guidewires, angioplasty balloons, and mechanical and thermal approaches as well as illustrates their specific application.
Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 2018
Purpose: To compare the outcomes and costs of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement and retrieval in the interventional radiology (IR) and surgical departments at a tertiary-care center. Materials and Methods: Retrospective review was performed of 142 sequential outpatient IVC filter placements and 244 retrievals performed in the IR suite and operating room (OR) from 2013 to 2016. Patient demographic data, procedural characteristics, outcomes, and direct costs were compared between cohorts. Results: Technical success rates of 100% were achieved for both IR and OR filter placements, and 98% of filters were successfully retrieved by IR means, compared with 83% in the OR (P < .01). Fluoroscopy time was similar for IR and OR filter insertions, but IR retrievals required half the fluoroscopy time, with an average of 9 minutes vs 18 minutes in the OR (P ¼ .02). There was no significant difference between cohorts in the incidences of complications for filter retrievals, but more postprocedural complications were observed for OR placements (8%) vs IR placements (1%; P ¼ .05). The most severe complication occurred during an OR filter retrieval, resulting in entanglement of the snare device and conversion to an emergent open filter removal by vascular surgery. Direct costs were approximately 20% higher for OR vs IR IVC filter placements ($2,246 vs $2,671; P ¼ .01). Conclusions: Filter placements are equally successfully performed in IR and OR settings, but OR patients experienced significantly higher postprocedural complication rates and incurred higher costs. In contrast, higher technical success rates and shorter fluoroscopy times were observed for IR filter retrievals compared with those performed in the OR. ABBREVIATIONS CRNA ¼ certified registered nurse anesthetist, IVC ¼ inferior vena cava, OR ¼ operating room, VTE ¼ venous thromboembolism
Total laparoscopic retrieval of inferior vena cava filter
SAGE Open Medical Case Reports, 2015
While there is some local variability in the use of inferior vena cava filters and there has been some evolution in the indications for filter placement over time, inferior vena cava filters remain a standard option for pulmonary embolism prophylaxis. Indications are clear in certain subpopulations of patients, particularly those with deep venous thrombosis and absolute contraindications to anticoagulation. There are, however, a variety of reported inferior vena cava filter complications in the short and long term, making retrieval of the filter desirable in most cases. Here, we present the case of a morbidly obese patient complaining of chronic abdominal pain after inferior vena cava filter placement and malposition of the filter with extensive protrusion outside the inferior vena cava. She underwent successful laparoscopic retrieval of her malpositioned inferior vena cava filters after failure of a conventional endovascular approach.
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 Diseases
The purpose of this study is to compare IVC Celect and ALN filters in regard to their efficacy, retrievability, and one-year follow-up after retrieval. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective randomized study, conducted in three centers between April 2020 and May 2021. A total of 115 participants were randomized, of which 15 participants were excluded for various reasons. Each group of 50 participants was finally assigned a type of filter (Celect n = 50 and ALN = 50). Tilt angles at placement and retrieval, rates of overall filter retrieval, complications, complex retrieval, and clinical follow-up at 12 months were compared. Results: One hundred participants (59 men and 41 women) were included. The mean age was 62.4 ± 13.3, with no significant differences between both groups (p 0.503). The mean of dwelling time was 44.7 ± 93 days. (p 0.520) Filter retrieval was successful in all participants (100%). The main complication in CT prior to removal was tilt >15° (31%) and filter ...
Trends in inferior vena cava filter placement and retrieval at a tertiary care institution
Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders, 2019
Objective: The aim of this study was to examine practice patterns of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter insertion and retrieval at a tertiary care institution. Methods: A retrospective review of all IVC filter procedures performed at the University of Pennsylvania and entered into the Penn cohort of the Vascular Quality Initiative registry between January 2013 and September 2017 was performed. Data collected included demographics, venous thromboembolism risk factors, indications for filter placement, and presence and timing of retrieval. Trend analysis and multivariable logistic regression were performed to evaluate factors associated with failure to retrieve the filter. Results: During the study period, 627 IVC filters were inserted. The mean age was 52.8 6 16.9 years, and 49.3% were male; 39.2% were placed for a major indication, whereas 58.1% were placed for prophylaxis. There was a significant decline in overall frequency of filter placement during the period observed, with a 33% decrease from 2015 to 2016 and a 26% decrease from 2016 to 2017 (P < .001), with an overall retrieval rate of 44.9%. In contrast, there was a corresponding increase in filter retrieval, with a 20% increase in 2015 and a 68% increase in 2016 (P ¼ .02). In evaluating trends separated by indication, there was a significant decline in prophylactic filter placement (P < .001) and a trend toward an increase in retrieval of prophylactic filters (P ¼ .09). Whereas there was not a significant change in number of filter insertions for major indication (P ¼ .06), filter retrievals for major indication filters increased (P ¼ .01). Multivariable regression analysis revealed that longer time to follow-up (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; P < .001) and discharge to rehabilitation facility (OR, 6.14; P < .001) were predictive of failure to retrieve the filter. In contrast, filter placement at a later date within our study period (OR, 0.90; P < .001) and prophylactic indication for filter placement (OR, 0.36; P < .001) were protective from filter nonretrieval. Conclusions: These results show both a decline in overall IVC filter placement and an increase in overall IVC filter retrieval at our institution. These trends are predominantly due to a decrease in prophylactic filter placement as well as an overall increase in filter retrieval. Further study should be dedicated to increasing the retrieval rate in this population of patients.