Improving retrieval rates of temporary inferior vena cava filters

Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placed in Neurologic Intensive Care Unit: Effectiveness, Retrieval Rate, and Mortality

PURPOSE

Patients in neurologic intensive care unit (NICU) often undergo inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) placement for venous thrombotic events. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of IVCF, filter retrieval, and mortality among patients that received IVCF in NICU.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this single institutional, noncomparative, retrospective study, all patients who were admitted to NICU and underwent IVCF placement from April 2015 to December 2020 were reviewed. IVCF was successfully deployed in all 175 patients [100%; median age 68 years, female 84/175 (48.0%)]. The 3 most common causes for NICU admission were intracranial hemorrhage (66/175, 37.7%), ischemic stroke (62/175, 35.4%), and traumatic brain injury (16/175, 9.1%). Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism (PE) were confirmed in 155 (88.6%) and 35 (20.0%) patients at the time of filter placement, respectively. Primary outcomes of interest were postfilter placement PE, filter retrieval, and inhospital mortality. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using t-tests and chi-squared test for continuous and noncontinuous variables, respectively. Factors associated with primary outcomes were analyzed with a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Post-IVCF PE occurred in 3 patients (1.7%) with a median follow-up of 3 months. Excluding 26 inhospital deaths (14.9%, none was related to PE), filters were retrieved in 31 discharged patients (20.8%) with a median filter dwelling time of 9 months. Advanced filter retrieval required a higher fluoroscopy time (median 3.3 minutes vs 8.3 minutes, p = 0.016) and contrast volume use (median 35.0 ml vs 57.5 ml, p = 0.0028) than standard technique. No procedure-related complication occurred during filter placement and retrieval. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA, p = 0.012) and Simplified Acute Physiology Scores (SAPS, p = 0.016) were independently associated with inhospital mortality. Modified Rankin Score (mRS) at discharge was an independent predictor for filter retrieval (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Despite safety and effectiveness, IVCF retrieval rate for NICU patients was low, particularly those with worse mRS at time of hospital discharge. Worse SOFA and SAPS scores were associated with inhospital mortality.Clinical ImpactInferior vena cava filter (IVCF) is effective preventing post-filter pulmonary embolism (PE) in neurologic intensive care unit (NICU) patients, with only 1.7% experiencing PE post-placement, underscoring its role in managing venous thrombotic events in this high-risk population; however, the low retrieval rate of IVCFs, particularly in patients with poorer functional outcomes (worse mRS at discharge), and the association of higher SOFA and SAPS scores with increased inhospital mortality, emphasize the need for improved strategies to optimize filter retrieval and patient selection in critically ill neurologic patients.

Implications for patient follow-up of changes in inferior vena cava filter removal plan practices

AIM

To assess the improvements during patient follow-up after implementing a proactive plan for retrieval of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was undertaken including all patients who had a temporary IVC filter inserted over a 10-year period. Patient demographics, insertion dates, retrieval dates, retrieval rates, and complications were recorded. Patients were categorised into three groups as follows: group A, no intervention where retrieval was not suggested; group B, passive intervention where retrieval was suggested but no appointment made; and group C, proactive intervention where a retrieval date was booked by the radiologist.

RESULTS

Five hundred and nine patients had a temporary IVC filter inserted at Royal Liverpool University Hospital over the study period. One per cent of patients in group C were lost to follow-up compared to 41% and 29% in groups A and B respectively (p<0.001). The number of patients who had an IVC retrieval attempt also increased to 80% in group C compared to 53% and 64% in groups A and B (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Incorporation of a proactive retrieval booking system has significantly reduced the number of patients lost to follow-up to 1%, leading to an increased number of IVC filter retrieval attempts.

Pathological Analysis and Clinical Evolution After Radiological Removal of Retrievable Vena Cava Filters

Objective

Retrievable inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) have been developed because permanent filters have been associated with an increased risk of recurrent deep venous thrombosis. There is no data on the interactions of IVCF with the inferior vena cava (intrafilter thrombi, insertion through the venous wall) even though this may alter the course after retrieval of the IVCF.

Methods

A review of 85 consecutive patients undergoing retrieval of IVCF placed at a single center was performed from January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014. Inferior vena cava filter were examined for presence of intrafilter thrombus at time of retrieval. Filter position and presence of intraluminal thrombus were examined. Patient outcomes, including recurrence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and death, were captured at 3 month followup.

Results

Eighty five patients were identified, with intrafilter thrombi found in 69 (81%) patients and venous wall fragments found in 75 (88%) patients. However, their presence was not associated with an increased risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) or death during follow up.

Conclusions

Intrafilter thrombi and venous wall fragments are frequently found in removed IVCF but are not associated with a worse prognosis. They may not modify the therapeutic management of patients.

Vena Cava Filters: Toward Optimal Strategies for Filter Retrieval and Patients' Follow-Up

Mortality rates associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE) are high. Inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) have been frequently placed for these patients as part of their treatment, albeit the paucity of data showing their ultimate efficacy and potential risk of complications. Issues regarding long-term filter dwell time are accounted for in society guidelines. This topic has led to an FDA mandate for filter retrieved as soon as protection from pulmonary embolism is no longer needed. However, even though most are retrievable, some were inadvertently left as permanent, which carries an incremental lifetime risk to the patient. In the past decade, attempts have aimed to determine the optimal time interval during which filter needs to be removed. In addition, distinct strategies have been implemented to boost retrieval rates. This review discusses current conflicts in indications, the not uncommon complications, the rationale and need for timely retrieval, and different quality improvement strategies to fulfill this aim.

Clinical outcomes of retrievable inferior vena cava filters for venous thromboembolic diseases

Aim: To identify literature evidence assessing retrievable inferior vena cava filter (rIVCF) for venous thromboembolic diseases. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify relevant references from the mainstay English and Chinese bibliographic databases (search period: January 2003 to October 2019). Results: 80 original studies with 11,413 patients were included in this review. The success rates of deploying the six types of rIVCFs ranged from 98.4 to 100.0%. Denali had the highest retrieval success rate (95.4-97.6%). The incidence rates of fracture and perforation associated with retrieving the six rIVCFs were less than 2%. Conclusion: The approved rIVCF had comparable clinical profiles, except that Denali was easier to be retrieved than other rIVCF.

Changes in inferior vena cava filter placement and retrieval practice patterns from a population health perspective

PURPOSE

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are placed to reduce venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related morbidity and mortality, though the evidence supporting this practice is limited. In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a device safety advisory due to the risk of filter migration, fracture, and thrombosis with long-term use. The purpose of this study was to evaluate trends and predictors for IVCF placement and retrieval over a 10-year time period from a population health perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

De-identified patient information from the State Inpatient Databases (SID) and the States Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases (SASD) for Florida and California were used to identify all patients who underwent IVC filter placement from 2005 to 2014 and 2005 to 2011, respectively. Hospital practice patterns were assessed as a function of time as well as IVC filter placement and retrieval volume. Temporal trends were evaluated for statistical significance using the Cochran-Armitage test.

RESULTS

A total of 181,260 IVC filters were placed in 178,327 patients over the study period. IVC filter placements peaked in 2010; following the FDA advisory in 2010, however, IVC filter placements monotonically decreased each subsequent year. The proportion of IVCF placement patients with both acute DVT and PE (17.6% vs 11.8%, P < 0.001) at the time of hospitalization increased; likewise, the proportion of IVCF patients with acute DVT or PE with a concomitant acute contraindication to anticoagulation at the time of hospitalization increased as well following 2010 (17.0% vs 11.9%, P < 0.001). From 2005 to 2014, there was a continual increase in both filter retrieval procedures as well overall percentage of filters retrieved. However, estimated retrieval rates remained low, with a retrieval rate of less than 6% in 2014.

CONCLUSION

Following the FDA warning in 2010, there was a significant decrease in IVC filter placements, with filter placements more frequently performed in patients with poorer health. While retrieval rates increased over time, they remained low.

Usefulness of a Computerized Reminder System to Improve Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval and Complications

Inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) are associated with complications which may be due to delayed retrieval. Initiation of an automated reminder system may improve retrieval rates and reduce complications. A computerized reminder system, which provides interactive email reminders after implantation while collecting IVCF use data, was implemented. IVCF retrieval was compared before ("reminder not provided" group) and after ("reminder provided" group) implementation. Data regarding implantation, retrieval, and complications were collected. The primary efficacy outcome was retrieval rate, and the primary safety outcome was indwelling complication rate. Secondary outcomes were time to retrieval and a composite adverse outcome defined as IVCF thrombosis, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, and death. A total of 1,070 IVCF insertions were included, 715 in the "reminder not provided" group and 355 in the "reminder provided" group. Patient age (61 vs 64 years, p = 0.95) and gender (42% vs 40% female, p = 0.55) were similar in the "reminder not provided" and "reminder provided" groups, respectively. In the "reminder provided" group, the retrieval rate was higher (148/297 [49.8%] vs 223/715 [31.2%], p = 0.0001), the indwelling complication rate was lower (30/319 [9.4%] vs 115/715 [16.1%], p = 0.005), and the time to retrieval was shorter (112 days vs 146 days, p = 0.02). The composite adverse outcome occurred less frequently in the "reminder provided" group: (85/355 [23.9%] vs 297/715 [41.5%], p = 0.0001). The system was associated with increased odds of IVCF retrieval (odds ratio 2.56; 95% confidence interval: 1.82 to 3.59; p <0.0001) and reduced odds of the composite adverse outcome (odds ratio 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.60 to 0.80; p <0.0001). In conclusion, implementing a computerized email reminder system was associated with higher IVCF retrieval rates, fewer indwelling complications, and shorter dwell times.

Persistently low inferior vena cava filter retrieval rates in a population-based cohort

BACKGROUND

Practice patterns associated with inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement have seen considerable variation in the last decade. We used a statewide administrative database to examine trends in IVC filter placement and retrieval in the general population.

METHODS

We reviewed Florida state inpatient and ambulatory surgery databases from 2004 to 2014. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis and procedure codes and Current Procedural Terminology codes were searched for patients undergoing inpatient or outpatient IVC filter placement, and each patient was longitudinally tracked to the time of inpatient or outpatient filter retrieval. For inpatient filter placements, associated diagnoses were reviewed to identify indications for placement. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to identify factors associated with improved retrieval rates.

RESULTS

During the 11-year period, 131,791 IVC filter placements were identified, with a 50% increase from 2004 to 2010 and a 24% decline from 2010 to 2014. Median age at filter placement was 71 years (interquartile range, 57-81 years). Mean follow-up after filter placement was 17.3 ± 25.5 months. Only 8637 filters (6.6%) were retrieved. The annual retrieval rate trended upward, from 3.4% in 2004 to 8.5% in 2013 (P < .001). Median filter dwell time was 96.5 days (interquartile range, 44-178 days). Diagnoses associated with filter placement included venous thromboembolism (75.9%), trauma (35.0%), hemorrhage (29.9%), malignant disease (29.4%), and stroke (5.1%). Retrieval rates were highest in younger patients (34.0% in patients younger than 20 years) and lowest in Medicare patients (2.5%). In a multivariate logistic regression model, Medicare was associated with decreased retrieval rates (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.35; P < .001) after adjusting for age and associated diagnoses. Weaker risk factors included increased age, white race, and diagnoses of deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and malignant disease. A trauma diagnosis was associated with improved retrieval. To further investigate the Medicare effect, a propensity score-matched model was created to better account for confounding effects. In this model, Medicare persisted as a risk factor for decreased filter retrieval (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.46; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

IVC filter placements, after a substantial increase between 2004 and 2010, have been declining since 2010. Retrieval rates in the general population are steadily improving but continue to lag behind those described in center-specific literature. Increased age and Medicare as the primary payer are the strongest risk factors for lack of filter retrieval. Widespread improvements on a national scale are needed to improve the appropriateness of filter placements and to enhance filter retrieval rates.

Practice Patterns of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement and Factors That Predict Retrieval Rates: A Single-Center Institution and Review of the Literature

Background

There is a wide variability in practice patterns on the use of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) among institutions, which is likely due to contrasting indication guidelines published by different professional societies. The aim of the present study is to report our healthcare system use of IVCF to: 1) determine practice patterns, 2) determine factors that may predict IVCF retrieval and 3) identify areas for improvement.

Methods

A retrospective review of 180 consecutive IVCF placement performed between July 2014 and December 2015 was conducted.

Results

One hundred nine (60.6%) IVCFs were placed for absolute indications, 27 (15.0%) for relative indications, 26 (14.4%) prophylactically and 18 (10.0%) for unknown indications. Average age was 59.3 years. Ninety-five had active cancer. Surgical and medical services requested filter placement in 112 (62.2%) and 68 (37.8%) patients, respectively. Thirteen (7.2%) patients had a hematology consult prior to IVCF placement. Documentation of the presence of an IVCF was present in 118/127 (92.9%) discharge summaries, and outlined instructions for filter retrieval post-discharge were present in 20/124 (16.1%) cases. Only 33 (25.0%) IVCF were retrieved at a median interval of 162 days (range: 4 - 1,053 days). None of the factors of interest was found to be significantly associated with IVCF retrieval.

Conclusion

A root cause analysis identified that the lack of a structured system for IVCF tracking resulted in poor IVCF retrieval rates. This study resulted in the development of a hospital-initiated multidisciplinary team to address these issues.

Non-retrieval of inferior vena cava filters as a patient safety concern: evaluation of a new process improvement project to increase retrieval rates in a vascular and interventional radiology clinic

Background

Retrieval of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) is important to decrease the long-term risk of complications associated with indwelling devices. Our hospital experienced low retrieval rates and implemented a low-cost intervention and evaluation for quality improvement. The working hypothesis was that a simple, mailed letter intervention could increase retrieval rates by increasing patient and primary care provider knowledge of the need for retrieval.

Methods

For all prospective patients who received a retrievable IVCF during the intervention period from January 1, 2014 to February 29, 2016, patients and their primary care providers were mailed letters encouraging contact with the clinic for evaluation of eligibility for retrieval. The main outcome was retrieval of the IVCF if clinically indicated with a secondary outcome of time-to-retrieval. A pre-intervention control group from October 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013 was used to evaluate the impact of the intervention. Competing risks, time-to-event analysis was used to compare the pre- and post-intervention period retrieval rates correcting for patients who died during follow-up.

Results

Between the pre- and post-intervention periods, crude retrieval rates increased from 4.4% to 8.1% with a 12-fold change at comparable time points. The time-to-retrieval in the pre-intervention period was a mean (SD) of 503 (207) days with a median (IQR) of 505 (301–742). In the post-intervention period, time-to-retrieval was a mean (SD) of 119 (83) days and with median (IQR) of 128 (38–164) days.

Conclusions

This low-cost intervention significantly increased retrieval rates in a single clinic. However, retrieval rates remain low and can be further improved. Ongoing interventions, including improved patient follow-up and physician education, are being implemented to further improve retrieval and use of inferior vena cava filters. Implanting clinics should implement quality improvement initiatives to improve patient care and follow-up with IVCFs to ensure retrievals occur once clinically relevant in order to minimize long-term complications.

Retrievable IVC filters - Friend or foe

Venous thromboembolism is a common condition with widely varied outcomes. Pulmonary embolism is associated with a case-fatality rate of up to 8%, increasing up to 18-fold in massive PE. Pharmacological treatment of VTE with anticoagulant medication (AC) is the first line therapy of choice. Retrievable inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) are indicated as a short-term replacement for AC in certain circumstances. Most of the evidence concerning IVCF pertains to permanent filters and older filter models. Limited evidence for retrievable IVCF results in poor consensus regarding indications, follow-up and retrieval. Complications increase with dwell-time and retrieval success rates decline. Professional bodies advocate strict guideline adherence and robust strategies for filter monitoring to maximise retrieval rate.

Improving the retrieval rate of inferior vena cava filters with a multidisciplinary team approach

OBJECTIVE

The option to retrieve inferior vena cava (IVC) filters has resulted in an increase in the utilization of these devices as stopgap measures in patients with relative contraindications to anticoagulation. These retrievable IVC filters, however, are often not retrieved and become permanent. Recent data from our institution confirmed a historically low retrieval rate. Therefore, we hypothesized that the implementation of a new IVC filter retrieval protocol would increase the retrieval rate of appropriate IVC filters at our institution.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent an IVC filter placement at our institution between September 2003 and July 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. In August 2012, a multidisciplinary task force was established, and a new IVC filter retrieval protocol was implemented. Prospective data were collected using a centralized interdepartmental IVC filter registry for all consecutive patients who underwent an IVC filter placement between August 2012 and September 2014. Patients were chronologically categorized into preimplementation (PRE) and postimplementation (POST) groups. Comparisons of outcome measures, including the retrieval rate of IVC filters along with rates of retrieval attempt and technical failure, were made between the two groups.

RESULTS

In the PRE and POST groups, a total of 720 and 74 retrievable IVC filters were implanted, respectively. In the POST group, 40 of 74 filters (54%) were successfully retrieved compared with 82 of 720 filters (11%) in the PRE group (P < .001). Furthermore, a greater number of IVC filter retrievals were attempted in the POST group than in the PRE group (66% vs 14%; P < .001). No significant difference was observed between the PRE and POST groups for technical failure (17% vs 18%; P = .9).

CONCLUSIONS

The retrieval rate of retrievable IVC filters at our institution was significantly increased with the implementation of a new IVC filter retrieval protocol with a multidisciplinary team approach. This improved retrieval rate is possible with minimal dedication of resources and can potentially lead to a decrease in IVC filter-related complications in the future.

Changes in the rate of prophylactic vena cava filter insertion at a university hospital

OBJECTIVE

We previously demonstrated a high rate of prophylactic vena cava filter (VCF) insertion at our institution. We have since attempted to restrict the use of VCF to indications supported by Level-I evidence. This study was designed to evaluate the success of our interventions.

METHODS

All patients receiving VCF between 2007-2009 and 2012-2014 at a university hospital were reviewed. After assessing the use of VCF in the first period, a meeting was convened among the Departments of Radiology, Vascular Surgery and Trauma. Policy was implemented to avoid the inappropriate use of VCF. Data were prospectively collected in the second period to assess the effect of our intervention.

RESULTS

There were 156 VCF placed from 2012 to 2014. VCF was absolutely indicated in 84% of cases, relatively indicated in 9% and prophylactic in 7%. These data contrast our previous experience from 2007 to 2009. In the earlier series, a total of 244 filters were placed, in which 54% of patients had an absolute indication, 14% relative, and 32% prophylactic. There was a significant decrease in filters placed for pure prophylaxis: whereas 76 prophylactic filters were placed between 2007 and 2009, only 11 were placed between 2012 and 2014 (p < 0.0001). No significant differences existed for relatively indicated filters. The department of trauma and surgical critical care (TSCC) observed the most dramatic change in practice. TSCC placed 61 prophylactic VCF between 2007 and 2009 (57% of all filters placed by the department), and 4 prophylactic VCF from 2012 to 2014 (15% of filters placed by TSCC) (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrate a significant change in the attitudes regarding prophylactic VCF insertion between the two periods of study. Further investigations must be performed to assess changes in clinical outcomes that may result from the altered practice at our university.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Trauma Patients: A National Practice Patterns Survey of U.S. Trauma Centers

Inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) for thromboprophylaxis in trauma patients are being increasingly used despite a lack of strong clinical data in support of their efficacy and conflicting clinical practice guidelines. This national survey elucidates practice patterns of IVCF use across U.S. trauma centers. A web-based survey was administered to members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma between September 2011 and October 2011. The survey queried: 1) background and professional practice; 2) trauma patient population; 3) IVCF placement; 4) IVCF retrieval and follow-up; and 5) pharmacologic prophylaxis. Two hundred eighty-one of 1059 eligible providers completed the survey (27%). Respondents were from a wide spectrum of training backgrounds and clinical practice settings. IVCFs were used by 98.9 per cent of respondents. IVCFs in patients without known venous thromboembolism were considered by 93.2 per cent of respondents. Indications and timing of IVCF retrieval vary. Follow-up care of patients with IVCFs was not uniform. An IVCF registry was maintained by 38 per cent of trauma programs. Adjunctive pharmacologic prophylaxis was used by 96.8 per cent of respondents. This study elucidates the gaps and variations in contemporary practices of IVCF use in trauma patients. Identification of best practices in IVCF use and retrieval awaits well-designed comparative effectiveness studies.

A single center experience with retrievable IVC filters

Objective

To evaluate retrievable IVC filters in our institution and assess their retrieval following a well-structured follow up program.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Materials

The medical records of patients implanted with retrievable IVC filters were reviewed.

Methods

All retrievable filter insertions between July 2007 and August 2011 at our institution were reviewed. Data was analyzed for age, gender, indication, complications, retrieval rate, and brand of filter inserted. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS software v19. Chi-square was used to compare discrete data and t-test for continuous data. P < 0.05 was significant.

Results

A total of 484 patients were reviewed of which 258 (53.1%) had a complete medical record. And 96 (37.2%) filters were placed as permanent at the time of insertion. An additional 40 (15.5%) filters were converted to permanent (total permanent filters 136; 52.7%). Death was reported in 26 (10%) patients and 96 (37.2%) out of the remaining 232 patients presented for potential retrieval. Also, 73 (28.2%) had an attempt to retrieve the filters, 69 (94.5%) were successful and 4 (5.4%) failed to retrieve. The remaining 23 (8.9%) patients declined retrieval. Filters studied include Celect (38%), Bard (31.4%), Option (26.2%), Tulip (4.1%), and Recovery (0.2%). Bard was more commonly used as a retrievable filter (80.9%). Retrieval on the first attempt was 90.4% ( n = 66) successful. Of the remaining seven filters, three were successfully retrieved on a second attempt, and four failed to retrieve due to filter tilt. The success rates of retrieval for Celect and Tulip were significantly lower than for Bard ( p = 0.04 and 0.023, respectively).

Conclusion

Our study showed that a variety of IVC filters can be retrieved successfully with minimal complication rates. In more than half of our patients, IVC filters were used as permanent. Failure of retrieval was most frequently due to filter tilting.

Failed inferior vena cava filter retrieval by conventional method: Analysis of its causes and retrieval of it by modified double-loop technique

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the complications of the temporary implanted inferior vena cava (IVC) filter and the feasibility of double-loop technique for removal of complicated IVC filters.

METHODS

From January 2012 to December 2013, a total of 25 patients with IVC filter were referred for IVC filter retrieval. There were 20 Celect®, 3 OptEase®, and 2 Günther-Tulip® filters. All of the patients were evaluated with a pre-procedural CT scan to identify any complications. The IVC filters which had failed to be retrieved by the conventional method were evaluated, and retrieval was attempted with double loop technique.

RESULTS

Sixteen of 25 (64%) filters had complications; IVC wall penetration (n = 11, 44%), tilted within IVC (n = 6, 24%), embedded struts (n = 3, 12%), and fracture of the strut (n = 1, 4%). The complications were overlapped in five patients. Two of them (8%) had also complained of filter-related pain. The success rate of IVC filter retrieval by double-loop technique was 14/16 (87.5%). There was no major filter retrieval-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The double-loop technique is a safe and feasible method for complicated IVC filter retrieval.

Percutaneous retrieval of an inferior vena cava filter causing right ureter obstruction

Retrievable inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) are known to provide safe and effective pulmonary embolism protection when used appropriately. Long-term complications have been reported over the past 10 years, including vena cava perforation, filter migration, strut fracture, and injury to adjacent structures. This article describes the case of a 44-year-old woman who presented with right ureteral obstruction from strut impingement by a Bard Recovery IVCF (Tempe, AZ, USA). The filter had been in place for 6 years, and the authors were successful in retrieving it using a percutaneous endovascular approach, despite an unexpected chronic right innominate vein occlusion. In addition to highlighting the technical feasibility of long-term retrieval, this case underscores the importance of an IVCF registry to improve retrieval rates. This close monitoring and timely retrieval of filters may help prevent serious long-term complications.

[Temporary vena caval filters: report on cohort of 72 patients in Grenoble, France]

Patients with a contra-indication for anticoagulation can benefit from temporary vena caval filters for protection against pulmonary embolism or recurrence. The filter can be removed secondarily, once the contra-indication is overcome, enabling better long-term outcome by reducing the risk of thrombotic and mechanic complications inherent in these devices. However, it has been shown in several studies that effective withdrawal rates were low and could be improved by the establishment of protocols and registries. We report a retrospective study of withdrawal in 72 patients in whom an ALN® vena caval filter was implanted at the Grenoble University Hospital over a period of three years with an intention for secondary retrieval. Seventy percent of the indications were related to the coexistence of thrombotic and hemorrhagic conditions. Fifty-five percent of filters were removed, the remaining 45% shared involved patients who died before retrieval (11%), those lost to follow-up (4%), technical failure of retrieval (6%), withdrawal technically unfeasible (3%), retrieval refused by patients (6%) and medical indications for continuing filtration (15%). Despite an effective follow-up of these patients and 91% success rate of withdrawal, nearly one out of two filters remains in place. A long-term follow-up of these patients is needed to learn more about the outcome of these filters.

Reporting the impact of inferior vena cava perforation by filters

Background

Perforation of the inferior vena cava by filters struts is a known complication. The goal of our review is to assess the impact of inferior vena cava perforation by filters based on an open, voluntary national database.

Methods

We reviewed 3311 adverse events of inferior vena cava filters reported in Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database from January 2000 to June 2011. Outcomes of interest were incidence of inferior vena cava perforation, type of filter, clinical presentation, and management of the perforation, including retrievability rates.

Results

Three hundred ninety-one (12%) cases of inferior vena cava perforation were reported. The annual distribution of inferior vena cava perforation was 35 cases (9%), varying from seven (2%) to 70 (18%). A three-fold increment in the number of adverse events related to inferior vena cava filters has been noted since 2004. Wall perforation as an incidental finding was the most common presentation ( N = 268, 69%). Surrounding organ involvement was found in 117 cases (30%), with the aorta being the most common in 43 cases (37%), followed by small bowel in 36 (31%). Filters were retrieved in 97 patients (83%) regardless of wall perforation. Twenty-five (26%) cases required an open procedure to remove the filter. Neither major bleeding requiring further intervention nor mortality was reported.

Conclusions

Inferior vena cava perforation by filters remains stable over the studied years despite increasing numbers of adverse events reported. The majority of filters involved in a perforation were retrievable. Filter retrieval, regardless of inferior vena cava wall perforation, is feasible and must be attempted whenever possible in order to avoid complications.