A systematic review of symptomatic duodenal perforation by inferior vena cava filters

Inferior Vena Cava Filter Long Term Complications and Retrieval Techniques: A Case Series and Literature Review

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

Long-term mechanical complications after inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement include embedded or tilted filters, erosion of the vena cava, filter thrombosis. In the setting of caval thrombosis, patients may subsequently develop venous hypertension and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). Here we present three unique cases of IVC filter complications and surgical management.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 30-year-old female presented with acute abdominal pain, revealing a duodenal perforation caused by an IVC filter eroding into her duodenum. A 42-year-old female with an IVC filter in place for 20 years due to a prior pulmonary embolism underwent laser-assisted retrieval of the filter due to concerns of caval adherence. A 48-year-old male with a history of DVT, venous stasis ulcer, and an IVC filter presented for filter retrieval.

CLINICAL FINDINGS AND INVESTIGATIONS

The surgical techniques described in this report include complicated IVC filter retrieval, performed in cases of filter complications including migration, fracture, duodenal perforation and IVC thrombosis resulting in PTS. One case, requiring open retrieval, is explained and the surgical technique is provided. There are images and videos of these procedures to enrich the learning experience.

INTERVENTION AND OUTCOMES

The surgical techniques described in this report include complicated inferior vena cava filter retrieval, performed in cases of filter complications including migration, fracture, duodenal perforation and IVC thrombosis. One case, requiring open retrieval, is explained and the surgical technique is provided. There are images and videos of these procedures to enrich the learning experience.

RELEVANCE AND IMPACT

Endovascular retrieval of long-term complicated IVC filters is challenging, but it can be a safely performed in many patients. However, open surgery may be necessary in selected patients.

Urological complications caused by inferior vena cava filters: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters act in preventing pulmonary embolisms (PE). Various complications have been reported with their use. However, a credible urological complication rate, filter characteristics, and clinical presentation has yet to be summarized. Thus, we reported these complications in the form of a systematic review.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A search strategy was designed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE on February 10th, 2022. The design of this search strategy did not include any language restrictions. The key words (and wildcard terms) used in the search strategy were urolog*, ureter*, bladder, kidney coupled with filter, inferior vena cava, and cava*. Inclusion criteria were: patients older than 18, with previous IVC filter placement, and urologic complication reported. Exclusion criteria were: patients younger than 18, no IVC filter placement, and no urologic complication reported. Other case series and reviews were excluded to avoid patient duplication.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Thirty-five articles were selected for full-text screening. Thirty-seven patient cases were reviewed, and the median age was 53 (range: 21-92 years old). Abdominal and or flank pain was reported in 16 (43%) patients, hematuria was seen in eight (22%) and two (5%) patients died due to acute renal failure resulting from the urologic complications of the IVC filter. Indications for IVC filter placement were recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE), contraindication to or noncompliance with anticoagulant therapy. The IVC filters were infrarenal in 29 (78.4%) patients, suprarenal in five (13.5%) patients, not reported in two patients, and misplaced into the right ovarian vein in one patient. Three or more imaging modalities were obtained in 19 patients (51%) for planning. IVC filter removal was not performed in 17 (45.9%) patients, endovascular retrieval occurred in nine (24.3%) patients, and open removal was performed in seven (18.9%) patients, and tissue interposition was performed in two (5.4%) patients. One patient did not have the management reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Urological complications caused by IVC filters although rare, are likely underreported, require extensive workup, and pose surgical challenges. Due to their complex management, filter retrieval should be planned for as soon as feasible, and plans should be made as early as during the IVC filter implant. For those that do develop complications, clinical judgement must be exercised in management, and open surgical, endovascular or even conservative management strategies can be viable options and should be discussed in a multidisciplinary setting.

Developmental or Procedural Vena Cava Interruption and Venous Thromboembolism: A Review

The inferior vena cava (IVC) and superior vena cava are the main conduits of the systemic venous circulation into the right atrium. Developmental or procedural interruptions of vena cava might predispose to stasis and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) distal to the anomaly and may impact the subsequent rate of pulmonary embolism (PE). This study aimed to review the various etiologies of developmental or procedural vena cava interruption and their impact on venous thromboembolism. A systematic search was performed in PubMed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines per each clinical question. For management questions with no high-quality evidence and no mutual agreements between authors, Delphi methods were used. IVC agenesis is the most common form of congenital vena cava interruption, is associated with an increased risk of DVT, and should be suspected in young patients with unexpected extensive bilateral DVT. Surgical techniques for vena cava interruption (ligation, clipping, and plication) to prevent PE have been largely abandoned due to short-term procedural risks and long-term complications, although survivors of prior procedures are occasionally encountered. Vena cava filters are now the most commonly used method of procedural interruption, frequently placed in the infrarenal IVC. The most agreed-upon indication for vena cava filters is for patients with acute venous thromboembolism and coexisting contraindications to anticoagulation. Familiarity with different forms of vena cava interruption and their local and systemic adverse effects is important to minimize complications and thrombotic events.

Hazardous Situation During Conversion of a Long-term Indwelling VenaTech Convertible Inferior Vena Cava Filter

BACKGROUND

A lack of high-quality research and data has restricted the comprehensive understanding of the conversion procedure of convertible inferior vena cava filters. The aim of this study was to present an unusual situation with a high risk of causing complication, during conversion of VenaTech convertible inferior vena cava filter and our management procedure.

METHODS

Lower extremity deep venous thrombi were detected in a 62-year-old woman before major orthopedic surgery. A VenaTech convertible inferior vena cava filter was placed to prevent possible pulmonary embolism and 106 days later, the filter was converted without any complications.

RESULTS

At the 6-month follow-up, no adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term indwelling of a filter might increase the complexity and uncertainty of the conversion procedure. This report presented a rare but hazardous situation during conversion and our management procedure.

Permanent IVC filter strut penetration into an abdominal aortic aneurysm

An 85-year-old man with a known history of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) presented to a vascular surgery clinic with a severely swollen, tender and erythematous left leg. An urgent CT angiogram demonstrated a left-sided, proximal deep vein thrombosis, and a permanent, Bird's Nest inferior vena cava (IVC) filter (Cook, Inc., Bloomington, Ind.) penetrating his AAA. The patient was treated with a course of apixaban 5 mg two times per day and the decision was made to closely observe his IVC filter and AAA, given his numerous comorbidities and age. This case highlights the unique considerations associated with an approach to permanent IVC filter complications among patients with AAAs.

Persistent Abdominal Pain as Rare Complication of Duodenal Perforation From an Inferior Vena Cava Filter

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) continues to be a significant source of morbidity for surgical patients. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement is indicated for DVT in patients who have contraindications to anticoagulation or anticoagulation failure. Over the last decade, there is an exponential increase in IVC filter placement with increased complications reported. These include IVC penetration, IVC occlusion, insertion complication and filter migration. We report a rare case of symptomatic duodenal perforation by an IVC filter migration. This case illustrates that even though IVC migration and perforation is a rare complication, it should be recognized as a potential cause for gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in these patients.

Timing of Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement and Trauma Outcomes : Does Early Placement Matter?

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) are often placed in trauma patients who cannot receive prophylactic anticoagulation. IVCFs are utilized in an effort to reduce the risk of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and mortality. This study aims to investigate whether time-to-filter placement is associated with differences in trauma outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective review of adult trauma patients who underwent prophylactic IVCF placement. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on time-to-filter: 0-48 hours and >48 hours. Outcome measures included post-filter deep vein thrombosis (DVT), post-filter PE, in-hospital mortality, and ICU length of stay (ICU-LOS). Significance was defined as P < .05.

RESULTS

During the 6-year study period, 513 patients underwent prophylactic IVCF placement. Both groups were similar with respect to injury severity score (ISS) (P = .540), percent of patients on home anticoagulation (38% and 39%, P = .845), abbreviated injury scale (AIS) by anatomic region (P = .899), and traumatic brain injury (TBI) prevalence (P = .182). Time-to-filter was not associated with significant differences in DVT, PE, or in-hospital mortality (P > .05 for all). Filter placement in the first 48 hours was associated with shorter ICU-LOS and hospital-LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there are no investigations in the trauma literature looking at the impact of time-to-filter on complications related to venous thromboembolism and potential survival benefit. Results of this investigation showed that IVCF placement within the first 48 hours was significantly associated with shorter ICU- and hospital- LOS.

Costs and complications of hospital admissions for inferior vena cava filter malfunction

OBJECTIVE

Inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) malfunction can result from penetration, fracture, or migration of the device necessitating retrieval. Endovascular and open retrieval of IVCF have been described in institutional series without comparison. This study examines national hospital admissions for IVCF malfunction and compares the outcomes of open and endovascular retrieval.

METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample database (2016-2017) was reviewed for admissions with International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes specific for IVCF malfunction. All ICD-10 procedural codes were reviewed, and patients were divided based on open or endovascular IVCF retrieval. Patient characteristics, outcomes, and costs of hospitalization were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were 665 patients admitted with a diagnosis of IVCF malfunction. Open IVCF retrieval was performed in 100 patients and endovascular removal in 90 patients. Of those undergoing open surgery, 45 patients (45%) required median sternotomy and 55 (55%) required abdominal surgeries. Most patients were white females with a mean age of 54.4 years (range, 49.3-59.6 years) with a history of deep venous thrombosis (55.3%) or pulmonary embolism (31.6%). Most patients with IVCF malfunction were treated in large (81.6%) or urban teaching (94.7%) hospitals situated most commonly in the South (42.1%) and Northeast (29.0%) with no difference in characteristics of the patients or the centers between the two groups. Patients undergoing open IVCF retrieval were more likely to undergo surgery on an elective basis compared with endovascular IVCF retrieval (75.0% vs 11.1%; P < .001). Open IVCF retrieval was associated with a higher likelihood of thromboembolic complication compared with endovascular retrieval (20% vs 0%; P = .04). There was a trend toward higher infectious complications and overall complications with endovascular removal, but this difference did not reach statistical significance. Open retrieval was associated with a mortality of 5.0% compared with no inpatient mortality with endovascular retrieval (P = .33). The mean hospital length of stay was no difference between the two groups. Open retrieval was associated with significantly higher hospital costs than endovascular retrieval ($34,276 vs $19,758; P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Filter removal for patients with IVCF malfunction is associated with significant morbidity and cost, regardless of modality of retrieval. The introduction of specific ICD-10 codes for IVCF malfunction allows researchers to study these events. The development of effective tools for outpatient retrieval of malfunctioning IVCF could decrease related hospitalization and have potential savings for the healthcare system.

An alternative approach to treatment of inferior vena cava filter perforation

Abstract We report a case of inferior vena cava filter perforation immediately after filter implantation, recognized intraoperatively in a patient undergoing laparotomy for resection of locally advanced ovarian cancer. We describe an alternative approach with strut resection, less invasive than filter removal, enabling the device to be maintained and bleeding to be controlled.

Forceps-assisted Removal of Difficult-to-Retrieve Filters: Preliminary Results

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the safety and effectiveness of forceps-assisted removal of difficult-to-retrieve filters.

METHODS

Patients who underwent forceps-assisted removal of difficult-to-retrieve filters (filters that could not be successfully removed with the standard loop-snare technique) between February 2008 and February 2019 were included in this study. Patients underwent forceps-assisted filter removal either immediately after failed loop-snare removal (same procedure) or at a later time (separate procedure). Data regarding success rate, X-ray exposure time, and complications were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 27 patients (14 men, 13 women; mean age 57.9 ± 12.6 years) were included in this study. The mean indwelling time of the filters was 10.9 ± 10.7 months. All filters were successfully removed. The mean X-ray exposure time was 25.9 ± 12.7 min (range 8-55) for all patients; the mean X-ray exposure times were 10.2 ± 2.3 min (range 8-14) for the 5 patients who underwent forceps-assisted filter removal in a separate procedure and 29.5 ± 11.2 min (range 15-55) for the 22 patients who underwent forceps-assisted filter removal immediately after failure of the loop-snare technique (P < 0.001). Two patients (8.3%) experienced extravasation of contrast material and needed no additional treatment. No major complications occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Forceps-assisted filter retrieval can be used to safely and effectively remove difficult-to-retrieve filters.

Diagnosis and management of duodenal perforations: a narrative review

Duodenal perforation is a rare, but potentially life-threatening injury. Multiple etiologies are associated with duodenal perforations such as peptic ulcer disease, iatrogenic causes and trauma. Computed tomography with intravenous and oral contrast is the most valuable imaging technique to identify duodenal perforation. In some cases, surgical exploration may be necessary for diagnosis. Specific treatment depends upon the nature of the disease process that caused the perforation, the timing, location and extent of the injury and the clinical condition of the patient. Conservative management seems to be feasible in stable patients with sealed perforations. Immediate surgery is required for patients presenting with peritonitis and/or intra-abdominal sepsis. Minimally invasive techniques are safe and effective alternatives to conventional open surgery in selected patients with duodenal perforations. Here we review the current literature on duodenal perforations and discuss the outcomes of different treatment strategies.

A technique for taping inferior vena cava caudal to the duodenum: duodenal penetration by IVC filter strut after retroperitoneal lymph node dissection-usefulness of the mesenteric approach

Background

Although an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is used for preventing pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) in patients with deep vein thrombosis, IVC filter penetration in the duodenum is a rare complication.

Case presentation

A 35-year-old man had previously undergone retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) for testicular cancer and IVC filter placement for prevention of PTE. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for his epigastric pain revealed penetration of the IVC filter in the duodenum. The IVC filter was retrieved through cavotomy, and the duodenal penetration was repaired using EGD clipping. Although it was difficult to mobilize the duodenum due to adhesion resulting from RPLND, the use of a mesenteric approach enabled encircling of the IVC caudal to the duodenum. The mesenteric approach is useful and safe for taping the IVC caudal to the duodenum in cases where it is difficult to mobilize the duodenum.

Conclusion

IVC taping using the mesenteric approach allowed safe retrieval of the IVC filter after RPLND without postoperative complications.

Utility of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: A Systematic Literature Review and Analysis of the Reasons for Nonretrieval of Filters with Temporary Indications

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the use of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in the current practice and analyze the causes of filter left in situ despite initial plans for retrieval.

METHODS

A systematic search of all English-language studies of retrievable IVC filters was conducted, including clinical trials and observational studies published between January 1984 and March 2016.

RESULTS

A total of 103 studies were identified, including 10 filter models in 20,319 patients. Placement indications were reported for 11,128 (54.8%) patients, including therapeutic (n = 6270; 56.3%) and prophylactic (n = 4858; 43.7%) indications. A total of 13,224 (65.1%) filters were left as permanent devices; 7095 (34.9%) filters were removed. The reasons for filter nonretrieval among the 5308 (40.1%) reported cases were primary permanent indication (21.2%; 1127/5308), death (19.4%; 1031/5308), ongoing pulmonary embolism (PE) protection (19.0%; 1011/5308), failed retrieval (13.7%; 725/5308), loss to follow-up (13.0%; 689/5308), discontinued care (4.4%; 235/5308), physician oversight (4.0%; 213/5308), patient morbidity (2.8%; 149/5308), and patient refusal (2.4%; 128/5308). A total of 7820 patients presented for filter retrieval, and 7095 filters (90.7%) were successfully removed, with a mean indwelling time of 106.6 ± 47.3 days. Breakthrough PE was reported in 2.1% (191/9169) of patients. Filter tilt, recurrent deep vein thrombosis, penetration, IVC thrombosis, migration, and fracture occurred in 7.7% (798/10,348), 7.1% (362/5092), 5.4% (379/7001), 3.9% (345/8788), 1.4% (160/11,679), and 0.5% (50/9509) of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately two-thirds of retrievable filters were not retrieved even though more than 85% of the filters were initially intended for temporary use. The major reasons for filter left in situ despite initial plans for retrieval were death, need for ongoing PE protection, failed retrieval, loss to follow-up, discontinued care, and physician oversight.

Successful Percutaneous Retrieval of IVC Filter with Wide Retroperitoneal Penetration Presenting with Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Symptomatic penetration of the retroperitoneal structures by inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is a rare clinical entity. Vast majority of these patients require laparotomy and open retrieval of the filter. We report a case of a filter penetrating into the duodenum within two months of implantation resulting in gastrointestinal bleeding. The patient was successfully managed with percutaneous retrieval of the filter, blood transfusion and serial abdominal examination thus avoiding laparotomy.

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

Use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters (RIVCFs) has grown exponentially since their introduction into clinical practice, but many of these devices are not retrieved. Some are not retrieved due to poor clinical follow-up, but other devices remain in situ for extended periods because they present significant technical challenges during retrieval. Because of these and other factors, many of these devices were thus left in place permanently. However, recent data have placed a renewed emphasis on device retrieval due to increased risk of RIVCF-related complications, which are positively correlated with filter dwell time. Development of advanced filter retrieval techniques has had a significant impact on the removal of embedded RIVCFs, permitting retrieval of the majority of devices. The purpose of this article is to present an imaging and data review of the dominant device-related factors that complicate RIVCF retrieval and to describe the relevant advanced retrieval techniques to manage these factors. RIVCF imaging is frequently encountered in daily clinical practice via various imaging modalities. Therefore, diagnostic radiologists can play a vital role in identifying filter-related issues. Familiarity with the context for managing these issues in the interventional suite is essential for improving triage and care of patients with RIVCFs. ^© RSNA, 2017.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters to Prevent Pulmonary Embolism: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are widely used for prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE). However, uncertainty persists about their efficacy and safety.

OBJECTIVES

The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published reports on the efficacy and safety of IVC filters.

METHODS

The authors searched PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov through October 3, 2016, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective controlled observational studies of IVC filters versus none in patients at risk of PE. Inverse variance fixed-effects models with odds ratio (OR) as the effect measure were used for primary analyses. Main outcomes included subsequent PE, PE-related mortality, all-cause mortality, and subsequent deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

RESULTS

The authors' search retrieved 1,986 studies, of which 11 met criteria for inclusion (6 RCTs and 5 prospective observational studies). Quality of evidence for RCTs was low to moderate. Overall, patients receiving IVC filters had lower risk for subsequent PE (OR: 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33 to 0.75); increased risk for DVT (OR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.17 to 2.48); nonsignificantly lower PE-related mortality (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.05); and no change in all-cause mortality (OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.19). Limiting the results to RCTs showed similar results. Findings were substantively similar across a wide range of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Very few prospective controlled studies, with limited quality of evidence, exist regarding the efficacy and safety of IVC filters. Overall, filters appear to reduce the risk of subsequent PE, increase the risk for DVT, and have no significant effect on overall mortality.

Symptomatic duodenal perforation by inferior vena cava filter

Objectives

Duodenal perforation by an inferior vena cava filter is rare and life threatening. Our objective is to find out number of occurrences and compare diagnosis and treatments.

Method

The reference list of Malgor’s review in 2012 was considered as well as all new articles with eligible features. Search was conducted on specific databases: MEDLINE, Web of Sciences, and Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde.

Results

Most of the patients presented with upper abdominal pain and the use of radiologic studies was crucial for diagnosis. The most common treatment was laparotomy with filter or strut removal plus duodenum repair. However, clinical conditions of patients must be considered and the endovascular technique with endograft deployment into inferior vena cava may be an alternative.

Conclusion

Duodenal perforation by an inferior vena cava filter is uncommon and in high-risk surgical patients endovascular repair must be considered.

Case report on the non-operative management of a retrievable inferior vena cava filter perforating the duodenum

INTRODUCTION

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) continues to be a significant source of morbidity for surgical patients. Placement of a retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is used when patients have contraindications to anticoagulation or recurrent pulmonary embolism despite therapeutic anticoagulation. Although retrievable IVC filters are often used, they carry a unique set of risks.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 67-year-old man presents to the Emergency Room (ER) following large volume melena and complaining of syncope. One year prior, the patient had been diagnosed with Glioblastoma multiforme, for which he underwent a craniotomy with near-total resection of the mass. He subsequently developed a deep vein thrombosis and underwent placement of a retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter. Computerized tomography (CT) and esophagogastroduodenoscopy showed duodenal perforation by the retrievable IVC filter. The filter was successfully retrieved through an endovascular approach.

DISCUSSION

Retrievable IVC filter placement is the preferred method of pulmonary embolism prevention in patients with significant risk for bleeding. Duodenal perforation by a retrievable IVC filter is a rare and serious complication. It is usually managed surgically, but can also be managed non-operatively.

CONCLUSION

For patients with significant comorbidities or patients who are poor surgical candidates, non-operative management with close monitoring can serve as an initial approach to the patient with a caval enteric perforation secondary to a retrievable IVC filter.

Indications and Outcomes of Open Inferior Vena Cava Filter Removal

BACKGROUND

Despite recommendations for retrieval of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, most are not removed in a timely manner. Longer IVC filter dwell times are associated with caval wall perforation and tilting that make percutaneous retrieval more difficult. Open IVC filter removal is generally reserved for patients with symptoms referable to the filter, such as chronic back and abdominal pain. We present our management algorithm and review of cases of open IVC filter removal.

METHODS

Patients referred for management of implanted IVC filters from May 2010 to May 2016 were included. Demographic and imaging were reviewed for cases requiring open surgical removal.

RESULTS

There were 221 percutaneous retrieval attempts in 218 patients. Successful retrieval occurred in 196 (89%) attempts. There were 7 patients who had open surgical IVC filter removal after failure of percutaneous retrieval. One patient had 2 filters and another had 3 filters. Except for 1 case with complications during the percutaneous retrieval procedure, the remaining patients all suffered from back or abdominal pain. All had significant filter strut penetration through the caval wall into adjacent structures. Postoperatively, all patients had relief of pain. There were no deaths and 1 patient had a minor ileus that spontaneously resolved.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who fail percutaneous IVC filter retrieval can expect low morbidity and prompt resolution of symptoms after open surgical removal via minilaparotomy.

A Dedicated Inferior Vena Cava Filter Service Line: How to Optimize Your Practice

Despite the increased placement of retrievable inferior vena cava filters (rIVCFs), efforts to remove these devices are not commensurate. The majority of rIVCFs are left in place beyond their indicated usage, and often are retained permanently. With a growing understanding of the clinical issues associated with these devices, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has prompted clinicians to remove rIVCF when they are no longer indicated. However, major obstacles exist to filter retrieval, chief among them being poor clinical follow-up. The establishment of a dedicated IVC filter service line, or clinic, has been shown to improve filter retrieval rates. Usage of particular devices, specifically permanent versus retrievable filters, is enhanced by prospective physician consultation. In this article, the rationale behind a dedicated IVC filter service line is presented as well as described the structure and activities of the authors' IVC filter clinic; supporting data will also be provided when appropriate.

Duodenal perforation by an inferior vena cava filter with staphylococcal bacteremia: a case report

BACKGROUND

Inferior vena cava filter complications can range from dislodgement to perforation. Patients who present with concomitant bacteremia have rarely been reported. Persistent bacteremia usually results from direct bacterial seeding from a source other than perforation of surrounding viscus. It is unclear if the risk of perforation is higher in patients who are bacteremic due to other causes.

CASE PRESENTATION

We report an interesting case of a 67-year-old white woman who presented with fever, chills, and right upper quadrant abdominal pain. Her blood cultures were positive for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus with no obvious source. Upon further investigation, she was found to have an inferior vena cava filter perforating her duodenum. The cause of her abdominal pain was explained by the inferior vena cava filter penetrating the duodenum; however, the source of bacteremia could not be ascertained. The inferior vena cava filter was removed successfully, and she was discharged on an intravenous antibiotic. Her symptoms resolved soon after the filter was removed.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of inferior vena cava filters has increased significantly in recent years. This is likely due to their wider availability and safer placement techniques. With increasing use, the complications arising from these filters have been on the rise as well. It is very important for clinicians to be aware of these complications to avoid delays in diagnosis and patient care.

Caval Penetration by Inferior Vena Cava Filters

Background—

Limited penetration into the caval wall is an important securing mechanism for inferior vena cava (IVC) filters; however, caval penetration can also cause unintentional complications. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence, severity, clinical consequences, and management of filter penetration across a range of commercially available IVC filters.

Methods and Results—

The MEDLINE database was searched for all studies (1970–2014) related to IVC filters. A total of 88 clinical studies and 112 case reports qualified for analysis; these studies included 9002 patients and 15 types of IVC filters. Overall, penetration was reported in 19% of patients (1699 of 9002), and 19% of those penetrations (322 of 1699) showed evidence of organ/structure involvement. Among patients with penetration, 8% were symptomatic, 45% were asymptomatic, and 47% had unknown symptomatology. The most frequently reported symptom was pain (77%, 108 of 140). Major complications were reported in 83 patients (5%). These complications required interventions including surgical removal of the IVC filter (n=63), endovascular stent placement or embolization (n=11), endovascular retrieval of the permanent filter (n=4), and percutaneous nephrostomy or ureteral stent placement (n=3). Complications led to death in 2 patients. A total of 87% of patients (127 of 146) underwent premature filter retrieval or interventions for underlying symptoms or penetration-related complications.

Conclusions—

Caval penetration is a frequent but clinically underrecognized complication of IVC filter placement. Symptomatic patients accounted for nearly 1/10th of all penetrations; most of these cases had organ/structure involvement. Interventions with endovascular retrieval and surgery were required in most of these symptomatic patients.

Outcomes of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in patients with deep vein thrombosis and transient contraindication for anticoagulation

Purpose

To determine the efficacy of a retrievable inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) for patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and transient contraindication for anticoagulant therapy, and to analyze the risk factors for filter thrombus in these patients.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 70 patients who received a retrievable IVCF from January 2007 to June 2014 because of documented DVT and transient contraindication for anticoagulant therapy. The protocol for follow-up care generally consisted of anticoagulant therapy after high-risk periods, follow-up CT around 2 weeks after IVCF placement, and retrieval if possible.

Results

The 70 patients had a mean age of 61.8 years (range, 17-88 years), and 30 were male (43%). The indications for IVCF were recent trauma including surgery in 48 patients, recent hemorrhage in 14, and planned major surgery with DVT in 8 patients. Follow-up CT of 61 patients (87%) was performed. Aggravation or new development of pulmonary embolism (PE) was not found in any patient. Filter thrombus was detected in 23% of patients with follow-up CT (14/61). Filter thrombus was not detected in patients with isolated calf vein thrombosis (ICVT) (P = 0.079). The risk factor for filter thrombus was DVT progression on follow-up CT (P = 0.007) on multivariate analysis.

Conclusion

For patients with DVT and transient contraindication for anticoagulant therapy, a retrievable IVCF could prevent the aggravation or new development of PE. DVT progression on follow-up CT was associated with filter thrombus and ICVT was not related to filter thrombus in the present study.

IVC filter perforation through the duodenum found after years of abdominal pain

Patient: Female, 67

Final Diagnosis: IVC filter perforation through duodenum

Symptoms: Abdominal pain

Medication: —

Clinical Procedure: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Specialty: Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Duodenal perforation by an inferior vena cava filter in a polyarteritis nodosa sufferer

INTRODUCTION

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are currently used in the management of pulmonary embolism (PE) and lower limb venous thromboembolism (VTE). Despite their widespread use, associated complications including duodenal perforation have been reported.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

We describe a unique case of duodenal perforation 2 years post IVC filter insertion in a patient with polyarteritis nodosa (steroid dependent) and thrombocytopenia secondary to chronic cyclophosphamide use.

DISCUSSION

IVC filters are commonly employed in the management of VTE. Associated complications have been reported including filter migration, fracture and adjacent organ perforation. There is growing consensus that temporary IVC filters should be retrieved as soon as possible with dedicated IVC filter registries to ensure patients are not lost to follow-up post insertion.

CONCLUSION

Duodenal perforation is a rare complication of IVC filter insertion. This case however illustrates the potentially catastrophic consequences of a relatively common endovascular procedure. Caution should be taken when considering the insertion of IVC filters in patients with longstanding vasculopathies who are on immunosuppressants.

Asymptomatic Duodenal Perforation from an Inferior Vena Cava Filter

Recent exponential increase in inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placements has led to a higher rate of filter complications. A 46-year-old man with a past history of IVC filter placement for bilateral deep vein thrombosis presented with lower abdominal pain. Imaging studies demonstrated IVC filter strut penetrations into multiple structures. Upper endoscopy confirmed an uncomplicated single IVC filter strut penetration into the duodenal wall. The abdominal pain was determined to be unrelated to IVC filter strut penetration, and the patient was managed conservatively. Although IVC filter strut penetrations can cause significant complications, current guidelines remain unclear for management of asymptomatic enteric IVC filter strut penetrations.

Penetration of the inferior vena cava and adjacent organs after filter placement is associated with retrievable filter type and length of time in place

OBJECTIVE

Concern over local complications of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters exists, but little long-term data are available. Referrals for filter penetrations on computed tomography (CT) have increased with no standards for management. We reviewed postfilter CT findings in our institution.

METHODS

All patients receiving IVC filters between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2009 with a postfilter CT were reviewed. Penetration was graded with a previously published scale. Filter indication, type, and subsequent encounters for abdominal or back pain were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 591 patients had a filter during the study period. Of these, 262 had an adequate postfilter CT, comprising the study group. Indications were prophylaxis in 16.4% and venous thromboembolism in 83.6%. Of filters placed for venous thromboembolism, indications were absolute (inability/failure of anticoagulation) in 44.7% and relative in 55.3%. Retrievable filters made up 92.7% of the filters, and 7.3% were permanent type. Of the retrievable filters, 1.6% were retrieved. One hundred twenty (45.8%) filters had grade 2 or 3 penetration. Another 38.2% (100) had struts immediately adjacent to the external aspect of the IVC, which may represent tenting of the cava. Grade 2 or 3 penetration occurred in 49.0% of retrievable filters but only 5.3% of permanent filters (P = .0001). Grade 2 or 3 penetration occurred in 18.2% of filters less than 30 days old but in 57.3% of filters 30 days old or older (P < .0001). Thirty-two patients had subsequent encounters for abdominal or back pain, but none was conclusively related to penetration.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of filters were placed for prophylaxis or relative indications and were retrievable type. Retrieval rate was low. Penetration of the IVC and adjacent organs was common and associated with retrievable type and length of time in place. It is unclear if most penetrations cause problems. Monitoring of penetrations with CT may be important to understand the natural history of this condition.

Excision of a permanent inferior vena cava filter with multiple vena caval perforations

Perforation of an inferior vena cava filter by one the filter device hooks is a recognized possible complication of this device. We describe a case of surgical excision of a permanent inferior vena cava filter associated with multiple perforations of surrounding structures by each of the 6 hooks of the device. Structures affected include the third lumbar vertebral body, transverse mesocolon, the infrarenal aorta, the duodenum, and the psoas muscle. A thorough understanding of the filter design and adequate preoperative imaging were vital in planning the safe surgical excision of this device.

Uterine trauma with fetal loss associated with chronic perforation of the inferior vena cava by an infrarenal vena cava filter

Gestational complications in pregnant women have been considered a theoretical sequelae of vena cava filters (VCFs) positioned in the infrarenal segment of the inferior vena cava. We describe a 32-year-old woman who became pregnant with the known existence of an asymptomatic but chronically perforated, permanent infrarenal VCF. At 24 weeks gestation, uterine trauma leading to massive intraperitoneal hemorrhage and fetal loss occurred. Our case documents that gestational risk, heretofore theoretical, is real and calls for heightened awareness of the need for appropriate VCF management in women of childbearing age and consideration for preconception evaluation of the filter-bearing inferior vena cava in women considering pregnancy in whom VCFs have been previously implanted.

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.

Endovascular Retrieval of an Inferior Vena Cava Filter With Simultaneous Caval, Aortic, and Duodenal Perforations

A 47-year-old female presented to the emergency department complaining of diffuse abdominal pain and melena. She previously had a Bard G2X inferior vena cava filter placed before undergoing a laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass 3 years before her current presentation. She had a history of an anastomotic ulcer that was treated medically. A repeat endoscopic evaluation revealed no evidence of a recent bleed and the ulcer was healed. Computed tomography revealed evidence of multiple filter struts penetrating through the caval wall into the duodenum and aorta. The filter was successfully removed using an En Snare without complications. Reviewing the current literature, open surgical repair has been the treatment of choice for similar patient presentations. We present a successful case of the endovascular retrieval of an inferior vena cava filter with simultaneous caval, aortic, and duodenal penetrations.