Clinical course and predictive factors for complication of inferior vena cava filters

Delayed Arterial Hemorrhage From a Lumbar Artery Following Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement: A Case Report

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a feared complication of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) that can lead to respiratory distress and even death. The mainstay of preventing PE is anticoagulation, but other strategies exist. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are an alternative strategy for PE prophylaxis in individuals who may have contraindications to receiving anticoagulation. Although the placement of an IVC filter is a minimally invasive and typically uncomplicated procedure, all procedures have their risks. We present a case of a 35-year-old woman who experienced a rare complication of IVC filter placement and suffered a retroperitoneal hemorrhage. The patient underwent placement of an IVC filter for PE prophylaxis before a scheduled sleeve gastrectomy. Hours after placement, she returned with new symptoms and signs of blood loss. She was found to have a retroperitoneal hematoma due to bleeding from a lumbar artery that was penetrated by a strut of the filter. Arterial hemorrhage from a lumbar artery is a rare complication of IVC filter placement, and it can result in poor outcomes for the patient. We aim to increase awareness of this rare but dangerous complication to improve recognition and patient outcomes in cases of delayed arterial hemorrhage following IVC filter placement.

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.

Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters-Use, Removal, and Removal Techniques

The use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters is on the rise, but there is an inadequate number of these filters being removed even if their use as a prophylactic for venous thromboembolism is no longer indicated. Complications with retrievable filters that remain in the patient for an extended duration include examples such as filter tilt and embedding into the caval wall. This raises concerns for whether the filter is properly functioning and for consequent sequelae, including recurrent thrombosis, stenosis, or inferior vena cava perforation. With these complications, there are also challenges to retrieving these filters via the standard techniques and thus more advanced techniques are required. Both standard and advanced techniques, their uses, and possible risks of these methods are also discussed.

Effect of a dedicated inferior vena cava filter retrieval program on retrieval rates and number of patients lost to follow-up

PURPOSE We aimed to assess the efficacy of a dedicated inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval program on filter retrieval rates and number of patients lost to follow-up. METHODS A dedicated IVC filter retrieval program began in July 2016. This consisted of tracking all patients with retrievable filters placed by interventional radiology (IR). At the time of filter placement, patients were scheduled for a retrieval consult in the IR clinic. Any missed appointments were followed up by a physician assistant. The program was overseen by a single IR physician. To assess this program's efficacy, we reviewed the records of all patients who had retrievable IVC filters placed by IR nine months prior to and nine months after program initiation. Demographics and clinical factors were then collected and compared. A P value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS Prior to the program, 76 patients (31 males, 45 females; mean age, 64.2 years) had retrievable filters placed; 75% were placed due to a contraindication to anticoagulation. From this group, five filters were removed (6.6%), 42 patients were lost to follow-up (55.3%), 22 patients died (29.0%), and seven filters were deemed permanent by a physician after placement (9.2%). All five retrievals were successful and no complications were reported. After program initiation, 106 patients (59 males, 47 females; mean age, 58.8 years) had retrievable filters placed; 75.5% were placed due to a contraindication to anticoagulation. In this group, 30 filters were retrieved (retrieval rate 28.3%), 17 patients were lost to follow-up (16%), 23 patients died (21.7%), 28 filters were deemed permanent by a physician after placement (26.4%), and decisions were still pending in eight patients (7.5%). One patient (3.3%) had a minor complication during filter retrieval. Initiation of a filter retrieval program increased our retrieval rate (6.6% vs. 28.3%; P < 0.001) and reduced the number of patients with filters that were lost to follow-up (55.3% vs. 16%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION Dedicated filter retrieval program is effective in increasing filter retrieval rates and decreasing the number of patients lost to follow-up.

Long-term computed tomography follow-up results of strut penetration of inferior vena cava filters

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the incidence of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter strut penetration and risk factors of organ involvement.

METHODS

From June 2003 to August 2015, there were 138 patients with deep venous thrombosis who received an IVC filter. Among 104 patients who did not have the IVC filter retrieved, 66 had follow-up computed tomography and were included in this study. The IVC filters used were 21 Günther Tulip (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind), 26 Celect (Cook Medical), and 19 OptEase (Cordis Corp, Bridgewater, NJ) filters. Filter strut penetration was categorized by a previously published scale of grade 0 to grade 3, and organ involvement was specifically assessed. Multivariate analysis was used to identify risk factors for organ-involving strut penetration (grade 3).

RESULTS

The median age of the patients was 66 years (27-84 years), and 46% were male. Median computed tomography follow-up duration was 14 months (1-137 months). IVC strut penetration was detected in all patients. Grade 1, grade 2, and grade 3 were 29%, 36%, and 35%, respectively. The risk factor of grade 3 penetration was indwelling time ≥30 months on binary logistic regression analysis (odds ratio, 4.395; 95% confidence interval, 1.179-16.385; P = .027).

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of type of IVC filter, the incidence of strut penetration was high. The risk of adjacent organ involvement increases over time. Retrievable IVC filters need close follow-up and retrieval as soon as they are no longer needed.

Asymptomatic patients with unsuccessful percutaneous inferior vena cava filter retrieval rarely develop complications despite strut penetrations through the caval wall

OBJECTIVE

We established a program for retrieval of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters within our hospital system. When percutaneous retrieval fails, we only recommend open surgical removal for symptoms and other complications. We examined our outcomes with conservative management of unsuccessful percutaneous retrieval and open surgical removal for symptomatic/complicated IVC filters.

METHODS

All patients with history of IVC filter placement who were referred to us for retrieval between 2010 and 2016 were evaluated. Before retrieval, patients were evaluated for risk of future venous thromboembolic events and ongoing need for IVC filtration. Asymptomatic patients with unsuccessful percutaneous filter retrieval were recommended to have annual follow-up with plain abdominal radiographs and to take daily low-dose aspirin. Patients with symptoms referable to the indwelling filter and those with complications were offered open surgical removal.

RESULTS

There were 213 patients with a history of IVC filter placement who underwent 220 percutaneous attempts for retrieving 214 IVC filters (four patients had two attempts, one patient had three attempts). Technical success in percutaneously retrieving the filter was 180 of 214 (84.1%) at a median of 5.5 months (interquartile range [IQR], 3.5-9.2) from implant. The median filter dwell time was significantly longer in unsuccessful compared with successful retrieval attempts (8.3 months [IQR, 4.3-15.1 months] vs 5.5 months [IQR, 3.2-8.7 months]; P = .011). Of the 34 filters in 33 patients that could not be retrieved percutaneously, all had either significant filter barb penetration through the caval wall or a tilt angle of greater than 15°. The majority of patients (67%) remained asymptomatic without any further complications over a mean follow-up of 24 months (IQR, 12-50 months). No asymptomatic patients developed symptoms or complications over the follow-up period. Two of the five patients who were symptomatic underwent open surgical removal via minilaparotomy. An additional six patients who failed percutaneous retrieval at other institutions were referred to us for open surgical removal owing to symptoms or complications. Technical success for all open surgical removal of IVC filters was 100%. All patients had resolution of their symptoms after percutaneous or open surgical removal.

CONCLUSIONS

Asymptomatic patients with unsuccessful percutaneous IVC filter retrieval seem to have low complications in midterm follow-up despite significant filter strut penetration. Without symptoms or other complications, such patients do not require referral for open surgical filter removal. Symptomatic patients can expect low morbidity and resolution of symptoms after percutaneous or open surgical removal. Further studies are needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of routinely removing asymptomatic IVC filters.

Randomized Controlled Study of an Absorbable Vena Cava Filter in a Porcine Model

PURPOSE

To compare the safety and efficacy of an absorbable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter and a benchmark IVC filter in a porcine model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized controlled Good Laboratory Practice study was performed in Domestic Yorkshire cross swine. Sixteen swine were implanted with an absorbable IVC filter (test device; Adient Medical, Pearland, Texas); 8 were implanted with a benchmark metal IVC filter (control device; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana). All animals underwent rotational digital subtraction pulmonary angiography and cavography (anteroposterior and lateral) before filter deployment and 5 and 32 weeks after deployment. Terminal procedures and necropsy were performed at 32 weeks. The IVC, heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys were harvested at necropsy. The reported randomized controlled GLP animal study was conducted at Synchrony Labs, Durham, North Carolina.

RESULTS

One animal died early in the test cohort of a recurring hemorrhage at the femoral access site resulting from a filter placement complication. All other animals remained clinically healthy throughout the study. No pulmonary embolism was detected at the 5- and 32-week follow-up visits. The absorbable filter subjects experienced less caval wall perforation (0% vs 100%) and thrombosis (0% vs 75%). The control device routinely perforated the IVC and occasionally produced collateral trauma to adjacent tissues (psoas muscle and aorta). The veins implanted with the absorbable filter were macroscopically indistinguishable from normal adjacent veins at 32 weeks except for the presence of radiopaque markers. Nontarget tissues showed no device-related changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of the absorbable IVC filter in swine proved safe with no pulmonary emboli detected. There was complete to near-complete resorption of the filter polymer by 32 weeks with restoration of the normal appearance and structure of the IVC.

Surgical Removal of the Inferior Vena Cava Filter Using Minimal Cavotomy: A Case Report

The use of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters has markedly increased in the recent years. However, the failure rate for the retrieval of the IVC filters using the endovascular method is reported to be up to 19%. Open surgical removal of the IVC filters is technically challenging and may require longitudinal cavotomy, clamping, and repair of the IVC. Here, we present a case of successful open surgical removal of the IVC filter using minimal cavotomy. This technique is an effective method after a failed endovascular removal attempt.

Is external compression on the IVC a risk factor for IVC filter abutment? A single center experience of 141 infrarenal celect filter insertions

•

Tilt of the IVC filter is the major problem for the filter retrieval rate.

•

External compression on the IVC wall can cause filter tilting.

•

Identifying external compression factors are necessary before insertion of IVC filter.

Objectives

To investigate risk factors for inferior vena cava (IVC) filter abutment, including external compression on the IVC wall, using venous phase computed tomography (CT).

Methods

One-hundred-forty-one cases of Celect IVC filter insertion between January 2009 and April 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. On pre-procedural CT, IVC diameter and morphological classifications were measured. Filter tilt angle, IVC angle, vertical position, and filter tip abutment to the IVC wall were analyzed on post-procedural CT. IVC compression was examined by pre- and post-procedural CT analysis. Multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find factors related to IVC filter abutment.

Results

Of 141 IVC filter insertion cases, 52 were classified in the filter tip abutment group and 89 in the non-abutting group. IVC tilt angle (11.7 ± 5.5° vs. 6.4 ± 5.4°), presence of external compression (14/52, 27% vs. 9/89, 9%), and IVC morphology were different between the groups (p < 0.05). In multiple logistic regression analysis, filter-tilt angle over 9.25° and external compression on the IVC were found to be independent predictors of filter abutment (odds ratios: 4.56, 10.18, respectively).

Conclusion

IVC filter tilt, external compression on IVC wall, and IVC morphology were significantly different between the filter tip abutment and non-abutment groups. External compression and filter tilt over 9.25° were risk factors for filter tip abutment in multiple logistic regression analysis. By identifying these factors, we may be able to reduce filter tilting by preventing the filter from being deployed in a dangerous area.

Endovascular Removal of Inferior Vena Cava Filters with Arterial Penetration

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and outcomes of endovascular percutaneous removal of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) with elements penetrating an artery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From an IVCF retrieval database, computerized tomographic scans of patients who underwent IVCF retrieval from 2011 to 2017 were reviewed for IVCF elements penetrating through the caval wall and into an adjacent arterial wall (AW) or penetrating into an adjacent arterial lumen (AL). Forty-two patients were identified, including 20 with elements penetrating into an AW and 22 with elements penetrating into an AL; 30 of these IVCFs were tip embedded.

RESULTS

All of the filters in both groups were removed. Of the arterial-interacting filters, 9 were removed with the use of standard techniques and 33 with the use of endobronchial forceps. Arterial access was obtained before removal in 3 patients (7%) with post-removal arteriography revealing no abnormalities, such as extravasation, pseudoaneurysm, or new fractured components. There was no significant difference between groups in tip embedding, retrieval technique, or fluoroscopy time.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular removal of IVCFs with elements that have penetrated into adjacent arterial walls or lumens can be performed safely in the majority of patients.

Should We Remove the Retrievable Cook Celect Inferior Vena Cava Filter? Eight Years of Experience at a Single Center

Background

The inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) is very effective for preventing pulmonary embolism in patients who cannot undergo anticoagulation therapy. However, if a filter is placed in the body permanently, it may lead to other complications.

Methods

A retrospective study was performed of 159 patients who underwent retrievable Cook Celect IVCF implantation between January 2007 and April 2015 at a single center. Baseline characteristics, indications, and complications caused by the filter were investigated.

Results

The most common underlying disease of patients receiving the filter was cancer (24.3%). Venous thrombolysis or thrombectomy was the most common indication for IVCF insertion in this study (47.2%). The most common complication was inferior vena cava penetration, the risk of which increased the longer the filter remained in the body (p=0.032, Exp(B)=1.004).

Conclusion

If the patient is able to retry anticoagulation therapy and the filter is no longer needed, the filter should be removed, even if a long time has elapsed since implantation. If the filter cannot be removed, it is recommended that follow-up computed tomography be performed regularly to monitor the progress of venous thromboembolisms as well as any filter-related complications.

Practice patterns of retrievable inferior vena cava filters and predictors of filter retrieval in patients with pulmonary embolism

Retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are increasingly used in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) who have contraindications to anticoagulant therapy. However, previous studies have shown that many retrievable filters are left permanently in patients. This study aimed to identify the common indications for IVC filter insertion, the filter retrieval rate, and the predictive factors for filter retrieval attempts. To this end, a retrospective cohort study was performed at a tertiary care center in South Korea between January 2010 and May 2016. Electronic medical charts were reviewed for patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) who underwent IVC filter insertion. A total of 439 cases were reviewed. The most common indication for filter insertion was a preoperative/procedural aim, followed by extensive iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Retrieval of the IVC filter was attempted in 44.9% of patients. The retrieval success rate was 93.9%. History of cerebral hemorrhage, malignancy, and admission to a nonsurgical department were the significant predictive factors of a lower retrieval attempt rate in multivariate analysis. With the increased use of IVC filters, more issues should be addressed before placing a filter and physicians should attempt to improve the filter retrieval rate.

Vena Cava Filter Retrieval Rates and Factors Associated With Retrieval in a Large US Cohort

Background

Retrieval of vena cava filters (VCFs) is important for safety as complications increase with longer dwell times. This study assessed VCF retrieval rates and factors associated with retrieval in a national cohort.

Methods and Results

VCFs were identified by procedural codes from an administrative claims database. Patients were identified who had a VCF placement during a hospitalization from a national commercial administrative claims database. Indications for VCF placement were identified as pulmonary embolism with or without deep vein thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis only, or prophylactic. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were included in proportional hazard regression models to find associations with early (90‐day) and 1‐year VCF retrieval. Initiation of anticoagulation and the correlation between time‐to‐retrieval and time‐to‐initiation of anticoagulation were observed. Of 54 766 patients receiving a VCF, 36.9% had pulmonary embolism, 43.9% had deep vein thrombosis only, and 19.2% had no apparent venous thromboembolism present. Over the 1 year of follow‐up, the cumulative incidence of VCF retrieval was 18.4%. Retrieval increased over time from a low of 14.0% in 2010 up to ≈24% in 2014. In adjusted time‐to‐event models, increasing age, differing regions, and some comorbidities were associated with poorer retrieval rates. Initiation of anticoagulation was poorly correlated with retrieval, with anticoagulation preceding retrieval by a median of 51 days while those without retrieval had a median of 278 days of exposure to anticoagulation.

Conclusions

VCF retrieval increased over the study period but remained suboptimal and was weakly correlated with anticoagulation initiation.

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.

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.

IVC filter retrieval in adolescents: experience in a tertiary pediatric center

BACKGROUND

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are commonly implanted with the intent to prevent life-threatening pulmonary embolism in at-risk patients with contraindications to anticoagulation. Various studies have reported increases in the rate of venous thromboembolism within the pediatric population. The utility and safety of IVC filters in children has not yet been fully defined.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the technique and adjunctive maneuvers of IVC filter removal in children, demonstrate its technical success and identify complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective 10-year review was performed of 20 children (13 male, 7 female), mean age: 15.1 years (range: 12-19 years), who underwent IVC filter retrieval. Eleven of 20 (55%) were placed in our institution. Electronic medical records were reviewed for filter characteristics, retrieval technique, technical success and complications.

RESULTS

The technical success rate was 100%. Placement indications included: deep venous thrombosis with a contraindication to anticoagulation (10/20, 50%), free-floating thrombus (4/20, 20%), post-trauma pulmonary embolism prophylaxis (3/20, 15%) and pre-thrombolysis pulmonary patient (1/20, 5%). The mean implantation period was 63 days (range: 20-270 days). Standard retrieval was performed in 17/20 patients (85%). Adjunctive techniques were performed in 3/20 patients (15%) and included the double-snare technique, balloon assistance and endobronchial forceps retrieval. Median procedure time was 60 min (range: 45-240 min). Pre-retrieval cavogram demonstrated filter tilt in 5/20 patients (25%) with a mean angle of 17° (range: 8-40). Pre-retrieval CT demonstrated strut wall penetration and tip embedment in one patient each. There were two procedure-related complications: IVC mural dissection noted on venography in one patient and snare catheter fracture requiring retrieval in one patient. There were no early or late complications.

CONCLUSION

In children, IVC filter retrieval can be performed safely but may be challenging, especially in cases of filter tilt or embedding. Adjunctive techniques may increase filter retrieval rates.

Temporary Inferior Vena Cava Filters: How Do We Move Forward?

Despite their widespread use, the indications for the selective use of temporary inferior vena cava (IVC) filters remains uncertain with few trials supporting their use. Additionally, the risks of long-term temporary IVC filter insertion are being increasingly discussed amongst the mainstream media and through multiple class action lawsuits. Retrievable IVC filters were specifically designed to have a less secure implantation in order to facilitate retrieval. However, multiple reports have demonstrated significant filter-related complications, most commonly related to duration of implantation. Furthermore, the risk is not isolated to one manufacturer alone. The incidence of filter-related complications is linearly related to its duration of time on the market. Currently, the FDA recommends that IVC filters be removed within 25-54 days of their implantation. Unfortunately, little evidence exists to show that this recommendation is followed routinely. Recently, the PRESERVE Trial (NCT02381509) was initiated as a multicenter non-randomized open label study to determine the safety and effectiveness of commercially available IVC filters (both temporary and permanent) in individuals who require mechanical prophylaxis against pulmonary embolism. Until such evidence is developed, temporary IVC filters should be implanted based on best available evidence and routinely removed within the guidelines of the FDA of 25-54 days. A fair question at this point is whether the design features themselves that are required to manufacture a low profile removable IVC filter can achieve effective prophylaxis against pulmonary embolism at a low rate of short and long-term complications.

Optimal cytoreductive surgery for underlying ovarian cancer associated with deep venous thrombosis without placement of inferior vena cava filter: A case report and literature review

Ovarian cancer associated with deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is an uncommon, potentially life-threatening condition. The primary therapeutic strategy for the treatment of this condition is up-front primary cytoreductive surgery, with placement of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter prior to surgery to prevent fatal pulmonary embolism. The present study describes the case of a 49-year-old female, who presented with DVT unresponsive to anticoagulant therapy in the lower extremities prior to the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. During the search for the underlying malignancy, transvaginal sonography (TVS) revealed a cystic solid mass in the pelvic cavity. Subsequently, the patient underwent up-front primary cytoreductive surgery without placement of a preoperative IVC filter, followed by six cycles of chemotherapy. The patient was diagnosed with ovarian clear cell adenocarcinoma stage IIIC, complicated by DVT, and had survived >3 years without relapse at the time of completion of the present study. The successful outcome of the present case demonstrated that occult primary cancer should be suspected in patients with DVT unresponsive to anticoagulant therapy. The present study also indicated that up-front primary cytoreductive surgery without placement of an IVC filter represents an effective potential strategy for the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer associated with DVT, as the thrombus strongly adheres to the vessel wall following organization.

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.

Respiratory-Induced Haemodynamic Changes: A Contributing Factor to IVC Filter Penetration

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the influence of respiratory-induced vena caval hemodynamic changes on filter migration/penetration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After placement of either a Gunther Tulip or Celect IVC filter, 101 consecutive patients scheduled for filter retrieval were prospectively enrolled in this study. Pre-retrieval CT scans were used to assess filter complications and to calculate cross-sectional area in three locations: at level of filter strut fixation, 3 cm above and 3 cm below. A 3D finite element simulation was constructed on these data and direct IVC pressure was recorded during filter retrieval. Cross-sectional areas and pressures of the vena cava were measured during neutral breathing and in Valsalva maneuver and identified filter complications were recorded. A statistical analysis of these variables was then performed.

RESULTS

During Valsalva maneuvers, a 60 % decrease of the IVC cross-sectional area and a fivefold increase in the IVC pressure were identified (p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference in the reduction of the cross-sectional area at the filter strut level (p < 0.001) in patient with filter penetration. Difficulty in filter retrieval was higher in penetrated or tilted filters (p < 0.001; p = 0.005). 3D computational models showed significant IVC deformation around the filter during Valsalva maneuver.

CONCLUSION

Caval morphology and hemodynamics are clearly affected by Valsalva maneuvers. A physiological reduction of IVC cross-sectional area is associated with higher risk of filter penetration, despite short dwell times. Physiologic data should be used to improve future filter designs to remain safely implanted over longer dwell times.