Adjustable temporary venous spring filter: in vitro assessment

Comparison of the in vitro clot-capturing efficiencies of commercially available retrievable inferior vena cava filters

OBJECTIVE

We compared the in vitro clot-capturing efficiencies (CCEs) of commercially available retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.

METHODS

Four types of commercially available retrievable IVC filters were included in the present study: Denali (BD, Franklin Lakes, NJ), OptEase (Cordis Corp, Hialeah, Fla), Celect (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind), and Option (Argon Medical Devices, Frisco, Tex). The CCE of each IVC filter for 10 different size clots, ranging from 2 mm × 10 mm to 6 mm × 20 mm, was analyzed using a venous flow simulator.

RESULTS

When ≥4 × 10-mm clots were used, the CCEs were 100% for all four types of IVC filters in a 20-mm-diameter simulated IVC filter. However, when ≤3 × 20-mm clots were used, the CCEs were significantly different among the four types of filters in a 20-mm-diameter simulated IVC, with the Denali showing the highest CCE, followed by the OptEase, Celect, and Option. When ≥6 × 10-mm clots were used, the CCEs were 100% for all four types of IVC filters in the 25-mm-diameter simulated IVC. However, when ≤5 × 20-mm clots were used, the CCEs were significantly different among the four types of filters in the 25-mm-diameter simulated IVC, with the Denali showing the highest CCE. When ≤5 × 10-mm clots were used, the CCEs were significantly lower in the 25-mm-diameter simulated IVC than in the 20-mm-diameter simulated IVC for all four types of IVC filters, with Option showing the greatest change in CCEs, followed by the Celect, OptEase, and Denali.

CONCLUSIONS

The CCEs were significantly different among the four IVC filters and were significantly lower for the smaller size clots than for the larger size clots and for the larger diameter simulated IVC than for the smaller diameter simulated IVC.

Avaliação in vitro de um novo filtro de veia cava

OBJETIVO: O objetivo do estudo foi avaliar a eficácia de um novo filtro de veia cava, de baixo perfil, na retenção de coágulos em modelo in vitro. MÉTODO: O filtro consiste em dois cones opostos pelo ápice. O cone distal é formado por oito hastes de aço inoxidável, que têm a função de retenção dos êmbolos. O cone proximal é constituído de quatro hastes, cuja função é ancorar e centralizar. Os filtros foram introduzidos e fixados no interior de um tubo de PVC transparente de 25, 30 e 35 mm de diâmetro interno, em posição vertical, e conectados com um sistema pulsátil de fluxo (bomba peristáltica). Foi utilizado, para veículo, um reservatório com solução salina (0,9%) com 40% de glicerina, mantido em temperatura ambiente. Confeccionaram-se trombos com sangue bovino em tubos plásticos de 3, 4,5 e 6 mm de diâmetro e, posteriormente, foram segmentados nas medidas de 10, 15, 20 e 30 mm de comprimento, totalizando 12 diferentes tamanhos. Realizaram-se 100 liberações para cada tipo de êmbolo e tamanho das cânulas, totalizando 3.600 eventos. Foram feitos lançamentos seqüenciais com cinco êmbolos, sendo 10 para cada tamanho de êmbolo e cânulas, totalizando 360 eventos. Fez-se avaliação da capacidade de retenção dinâmica utilizando os três diferentes tamanhos de cânulas com 100 eventos cada, totalizando 300 eventos. RESULTADOS: Detectou-se que o diâmetro e comprimento dos êmbolos, assim como diâmetros da cânula, podem comprometer a eficácia do filtro. A média de captura de êmbolos pelos filtros foi de 80,5% nas cânulas de 35 mm, 88,7% para cânulas de 30 mm e 86,6% para cânulas de 25 mm. CONCLUSÃO: Conclui-se que a eficácia desse filtro sofre interferência relacionada ao tamanho dos êmbolos e diâmetro da cânula.

In vivo evaluation of the adjustable temporary venous spring filter and the RF02 temporary filter: comparative study

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The authors performed this study to compare the in vivo efficacies of the temporary venous spring filter and the RF02 filter in an animal model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Either the spring filter or the RF02 filter was placed in the inferior vena cava of 10 pigs each, and two clots (5 x 20 mm) were funneled into the filters at 1-hour intervals. The second clots were funneled without removing the first clots captured by the filters. Clot-trapping ability, caval occlusion associated with the clot-trapping procedure, arterial blood gas concentrations, and changes in arterial and iliac venous pressures were evaluated.

RESULTS

Placement of the RF02 filter caused elevation of iliac venous pressure with a maximum of 2.2 mm Hg (median) (n = 13, P = .003). Placement of the spring filter parallel to venous flow enabled capture of 90% (nine of 10) and 100% (six of six) of the first and second clots, respectively. The RF02 filter captured clots consistently. The difference between filters was not statistically significant. Both filters equally contributed to elevation of iliac venous pressure (median, 9.3 and 7.2 mm Hg [n = 9] with the spring filter and RF02 filter, respectively). Caval occlusion occurred in 17% (one of six) and 67% (six of nine) of animals after two clots were trapped in the spring filter and RF02 filter, respectively (P = .06). Other parameters were not influenced by the clot-trapping procedure.

CONCLUSION

Although a larger version should be developed and better stability of the filter is needed, the spring filter proved to be an efficient filtering device and had a lower rate of caval occlusion compared with the RF02 filter.

In vitro function of an adjustable temporary venous spring filter: comparison with the temporary RF02 filter and the permanent Greenfield vena cava filter

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The authors compared in vitro function of a temporary venous spring filter with that of a temporary RF02 filter and a permanent Greenfield filter.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All three types of filters were placed in thin polyethylene tubes (diameters, 10.0-18.0 mm). Physiologic saline was substituted for flowing blood, and blood clots of three sizes (6 x 10 mm, 6 x 20 mm, 9 x 20 mm) were funneled to the filters. Clot-trapping ability of each filter and elevation of intraluminal pressure after clot trapping were assessed for each tube size.

RESULTS

No statistically significant elevation in intraluminal pressure was detected immediately after placement of any filter. The clot-trapping ability of the spring filter and of Greenfield filter were slightly lower than that of the RF02 filter, but the differences were not statistically significant. After filters had trapped large clots, a high pressure gradient was detected in the 10.0-mm tube for all filters. The spring filter was associated with a higher pressure than the other filters in the 12.0-mm tube (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

In vitro function of the spring filter was satisfactory in comparison with that of the RF02 filter and the Greenfield filter. For efficient filtering in the inferior vena cava, development of a larger version of the filter may be necessary.