Contemporary Rates of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Thrombosis and Risk Factors

Characterization and risk factors of inferior vena cava thrombosis in situ detected by computed tomography venography following filter placement: A single-center retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to characterize radiographic characteristics on computed tomography venography and risk factors of inferior vena cava thrombosis (IVCT) in situ after retrievable vena cava filter (VCF) placement.

METHODS

Between September 2018 and June 2023, a single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients with or without IVCT in situ following VCF placement. Patient baseline demographics, presentation of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (LEDVT), thrombus characteristics, concurrent pulmonary embolism, comorbidities and risk factors for LEDVT, and IVCT and VCF-related information were collected and analysed. Univariable analysis followed by multivariable analysis was performed to evaluate the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

One hundred and seventeen eligible patients were included, regionally isolated filling-defect surrounding the support pillars of VCF and contacting inferior vena cava (IVC) wall on computed tomography venography images were identified, clots were more frequently found on the minor axis or anterior wall of IVC. Univariable analyses suggested that the incidence of IVCT in situ (31.6%, 37/117) was closely associated with age (P = .001), thrombus limb (left (P = .001) and bilateral side (P = .001)), hypertension (P = .008), filter shapes (P < .001), short IVC diameter (P = .009) or magnification percentage (P = .004), and long IVC diameter (P = .006). Multivariable analyses suggested that bilateral side LEDVT (OR, 4.92; 95% CI, 1.56-15.51; P = .007) and increased short IVC magnification percentage (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; P = .013) statistically significant increase the IVCT in situ risk, whereas increased age (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99; P = .013) and short IVC diameter (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.98; P = .026) were associated with decreased odds against IVCT in situ.

CONCLUSIONS

IVCT in situ represents regionally isolated filling-defect at points of filter contact with IVC wall. Bilateral side LEDVT and increased short IVC magnification percentage may be potential risk factors impacting the occurrence of IVCT in situ, while increased age and short IVC diameter may decrease the incidence of IVCT in situ and seem to be protective factor against IVCT in situ emergence.

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.

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.

Effect of inferior vena cava filter placement position on device complications

BACKGROUND

Indwelling inferior vena cava (IVC) filters can cause complications, including penetration into surrounding structures, migration, and thrombosis of the vena cava. Computational fluid dynamics suggests juxtarenal placement of IVC filters decreases the risk of thrombosis; however, this has not been explored clinically. The present study examines the effect of filter placement position on long-term device complications with an emphasis on IVC thrombosis. We hypothesized that IVC filters placed further caudal to the renal veins were more likely to develop long-term thrombosis.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the medical records of patients receiving IVC filters at a single tertiary center between 2008 and 2016 was performed. Patients missing follow-up or procedural imaging data were excluded. The placement procedure venograms were reviewed, and the distance from the filter apex to the more inferior renal vein was measured using reported IVC filter lengths for calibration. The patients were divided into three groups according to the tip position relative to the more inferior renal vein: at or superior (group A), 1 to 20 mm inferior (group B), and >20 mm inferior (group C). The patient and procedural characteristics and outcomes were compared between the three groups. The primary end points were IVC thrombosis and device-related mortality.

RESULTS

Of 1497 eligible patients, 267 (17.8%) were excluded. The most common placement position was group B (64.0%). The mean age was lowest in group C, followed by groups A and B (age, 59.5 years, 64.6 years, and 62.2 years, respectively; P = .003). No statistically significant differences were found in the distribution of sex or the measured comorbidities. Group C was the most likely to receive jugular access (group C, 71.7%; group A, 48.3%; group B, 62.4%; P < .001) and received more first-generation filters (group C, 58.5%; group A, 46.6%; group B, 52.5%; P = .045). The short-term (<30-day) and long-term (≥30-day) outcomes, including access site hematoma, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism, were uncommon, with no differences between the groups. Cases of symptomatic filter penetration, migration, and fracture were rare (one, one, and three cases, respectively). Although a pattern of increasing thrombosis with more inferior placement was found, the difference between groups was not statistically significant (group A, 1.5%; group B, 1.8%; group C, 2.5%; P = .638). No cases of device-related mortality occurred. All-cause mortality after a mean follow-up of 2.6 ± 2.3 years was 41.3% and did not vary significantly between the groups (P = .051). Multivariate logistic regression revealed that placement position did not predict for short- or long-term deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, IVC thrombosis, or all-cause mortality after adjustment for the baseline patient characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

IVC filters have low rates of short- and long-term complications, including IVC thrombosis. The placement position did not affect the occurrence of device complications in this study.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters and Complications: A Systematic Review

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have been used since the 1960s to treat patients with acute risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) to prevent migration of thrombus by trapping it within the filter. Traditional usage has been in patients with contraindication to anticoagulation that carry a significant mortality risk. In this systematic review, we sought to evaluate complications associated with placement of inferior vena cava filters based on published data from the past 20 years. A search was performed on October 6th, 2022, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews, using three databases (ProQuest, PubMed and ScienceDirect) for articles published between the dates of February 1, 2002 and October 1, 2022. Results were filtered to include full-text, clinical studies, and randomized trials written in English pertaining to keywords "IVC filter AND complications", "Inferior Vena Cava Filter AND complications", "IVC filter AND thrombosis" and "Inferior Vena Cava Filter AND thrombosis". Articles identified by the three databases were pooled and further screened for relevance based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Initial search results yielded 33,265 hits from all three databases combined. Screening criteria were applied, with 7721 results remaining. After further manual screening, including removal of duplicate hits, a total of 117 articles were selected for review. While there are no consensus guidelines for best practice, there is compelling evidence that IVC filters can provide significant protection against PE with minimal complications if the treatment window is appropriate. Increase in the variety of filter models has led to broader availability, but skepticism remains about their efficacy and safety, with ongoing controversy surrounding appropriate indications. Further research is needed to establish clear guidelines on appropriate indications for IVC placement and to determine time course of complications versus benefits for indwelling filters.

Clinical outcomes of AngioJet pharmacomechanical thrombectomy versus catheter-directed thrombolysis for the treatment of filter-related caval thrombosis

BACKGROUND

The inferior vena cava filter is utilized worldwide to intercept thrombi and to reduce the risk of fatal pulmonary embolism (PE). However, filter-related thrombosis is a complication of filter implantation. Endovascular methods such as AngioJet rheolytic thrombectomy (ART) and catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) can treat filter-related caval thrombosis, but the clinical outcomes of both treatment modalities have not been determined.

AIM

To compare the treatment outcomes of AngioJet rheolytic thrombectomy vs catheter-directed thrombolysis in patients with filter-related caval thrombosis.

METHODS

In this single-center retrospective study, 65 patients (34 males and 31 females; mean age: 59.0 ± 13.43 years) with intrafilter and inferior vena cava thrombosis were enrolled between January 2021 and August 2022. These patients were assigned to either the AngioJet group (n = 44) or the CDT group (n = 21). Clinical data and imaging information were collected. Evaluation measures included thrombus clearance rate, periprocedural complications, urokinase dosage, incidence of PE, limb circumference difference, length of stay, and filter removal rate.

RESULTS

Technical success rates were 100% in the AngioJet and CDT groups. In the AngioJet group, grade II and grade III thrombus clearance was achieved in 26 (59.09%) and 14 (31.82%) patients, respectively. In the CDT group, grade II and grade III thrombus clearance was accomplished in 11 (52.38%) patients and 8 (38.10%) patients, respectively (P > 0.05).The peridiameter difference of the thigh was significantly reduced in patients from both groups after treatment (P < 0.05). The median dosage of urokinase was 0.08 (0.02, 0.25) million U in the AngioJet group and 1.50 (1.17, 1.83) million U in the CDT group (P < 0.05). Minor bleeding was shown in 4 (19.05%) patients in the CDT group, and when it was compared with that in the AngioJet group, the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). No major bleeding occurred. Seven (15.91%) patients in the AngioJet group had hemoglobinuria and 1 (4.76%) patient in the CDT group had bacteremia. There were 8 (18.18%) patients with PE in the AngioJet group and 4 (19.05%) patients in the CDT group before the intervention (P > 0.05). Computed tomography angiopulmonography (CTA) showed that PE was resolved after the intervention. New PE occurred in 4 (9.09%) patients in the AngioJet group and in 2 (9.52%) patients in the CDT group after theintervention (P > 0.05). These cases of PE were asymptomatic. The mean length of stay was longer in the CDT group (11.67 ± 5.34 d) than in the AngioJet group (10.64 ± 3.52 d) (P < 0.05). The filter was successfully retrieved in the first phase in 10 (47.62%) patients in the CDT group and in 15 (34.09%) patients in the AngioJet group (P > 0.05).Cumulative removal was accomplished in 17 (80.95%) out of 21 patients in the CDT group and in 42 (95.45%) out of 44 patients in the ART group (P > 0.05). The median indwelling time for patients with successful retrieval was 16 (13139) d in the CDT group and 59 (12231) d in the ART group (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with catheter-directed thrombolysis, AngioJet rheolytic thrombectomy can achieve similar thrombus clearance effects, improve the filter retrieval rate, reduce the urokinase dosage and lower the risk of bleeding events in patients with filter-related caval thrombosis.