Inferior vena cava filters

Back to the Basics: Inferior Vena Cava Filters

Inferior vena cava filters are an important therapeutic option for patients with venous thromboembolism and contraindication to anticoagulation. Indications for filter placement have varied over the previous decades. This article discusses the history of inferior vena cava filter use, with a basic overview of technology and specific devices. Finally, this article reviews emerging filter design and technology. Understanding the basics of inferior vena cava filters is critical to building more robust clinical data for the purpose of improving patient outcomes.

Current Controversies in Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Despite inferior vena cava (IVC) filter practice spanning over 50 years, interventionalists face many controversies in proper utilization and management. This article reviews recent literature and offers opinions on filter practices. IVC filtration is most likely to benefit patients at high risk of iatrogenic pulmonary embolus during endovenous intervention. Filters should be used selectively in patients with acute trauma or who are undergoing bariatric surgery. Retrieval should be attempted for perforating filter and fractured filter fragments when imaging suggests feasibility and favorable risk-to-benefit ratio. Antibiotic prophylaxis should be considered when removing filters with confirmed gastrointestinal penetration. Anticoagulation solely because of filter presence is not recommended except in patients with active malignancy. Anticoagulation while filters remain in place may decrease long-term filter complications in these patients. Patients with a filter and symptomatic IVC occlusion should be offered filter removal and IVC reconstruction. Physicians implanting filters may maximize retrieval by maintaining physician-patient relationships and scheduling follow-up at time of placement. Annual follow-up allows continued evaluation for removal or replacement as appropriate. Advanced retrieval techniques increase retrieval rates but require caution. Certain cases may require referral to experienced centers with additional retrieval resources. The views expressed should help guide clinical practice, future innovation, and research.

Inferior vena cava filter placement in a left IVC and drainage into duplicated SVC via hemiazygous continuation

Left-sided inferior vena cava (IVC) is the second most common anatomical anomaly of the IVC. We report a drainage pattern of the left IVC into a left duplicated superior vena cava (SVC) diagnosed during IVC filter placement consultation. The patient was a 66-year-old man with symptomatic hematuria caused by bladder cancer diagnosed with IVC thrombus and a left IVC found on a staging computed tomography urogram. The patient underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiogram, which ruled out pulmonary embolism, but demonstrated hemiazygous continuation of the left IVC above the diaphragm to meet a persistent left SVC (prevalence approximately 0.3%-0.5%) (Kim et al. 1995) [1] emptying into the right atrium via the coronary sinus. We report a novel drainage pattern of the left IVC into a duplicated left SVC via hemiazygous continuation.

Vena Caval Filter Utilization and Outcomes in Pulmonary Embolism: Medicare Hospitalizations From 1999 to 2010

BACKGROUND

Inferior vena caval filters (IVCFs) may prevent recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE). Despite uncertainty about their net benefit, patterns of use and outcomes of these devices in contemporary practice are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The authors determined the trends in utilization rates and outcomes of IVCF placement in patients with PE and explored regional variations in use in the United States.

METHODS

In a national cohort study of all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries ≥65 years of age with principal discharge diagnoses of PE between 1999 and 2010, rates of IVCF placement per 100,000 beneficiary-years and per 1,000 patients with PE were determined. The 30-day and 1-year mortality rates after IVCF placement were also investigated.

RESULTS

Among 556,658 patients hospitalized with PE, 94,427 underwent IVCF placement. Between 1999 and 2010, the number of PE hospitalizations with IVCF placement increased from 5,003 to 8,928, representing an increase in the rate per 100,000 beneficiary-years from 19.0 to 32.5 (p < 0.001 for both). As the total number of PE hospitalizations increased (from 31,746 in 1999 to 54,392 in 2010), the rate of IVCF placement per 1,000 PE hospitalizations did not change significantly (from 157.6 to 164.1, p = 0.11). Results were consistent across demographic subgroups, although IVCF use was higher in blacks and patients ≥85 years of age. IVCF utilization varied widely across regions, with the highest rate in the South Atlantic region and the lowest rate in the Mountain region.

CONCLUSIONS

In a period of increasing PE hospitalizations among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, IVCF placement increased as utilization rates in patients with PE remained greater than 15%. Mortality associated with PE hospitalizations is declining, regardless of IVCF use.

Efficacy of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement in the Prevention of Pulmonary Embolism during Catheter-Directed Thrombectomy for Proximal Lower-Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement is not indicated for thrombolytic interventional treatment for deep vein thrombosis (DVT). We analyzed the efficacy and feasibility of retrievable IVC filter placement for the preventive management of embolic shedding during catheter-directed thrombectomy (CDT) for DVT of lower extremity.

METHODS

Seventy patients (35 males and 35 females) who underwent retrievable IVC filter placement to prevent thrombus dislodgement during CDT in all symptomatic DVT with thrombus age suspected within 4 weeks of the lower extremity between March 2008 and January 2014 were included in this study. All patients underwent laboratory blood study, duplex ultrasound and/or computed tomography for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up in accordance with treatment policy of our Uijeongbu St. Mary's hospital. Two types of retrievable IVC filters (OptEase Filter, Cordis, Roden, The Netherlands; Gunther Tulip Filter, Cook, Bloomington, IN) were used to prevent thromboembolic events during CDT. After filter placement, subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin and overlapped to warfarin or new oral anticoagulant tried to achieve a target international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.0-3.0 in warfarin patients.

RESULTS

The thrombus was dislodged through the IVC filter during catheter-directed thrombolytic therapy in 22 patients (31.4%). In 22 cases, the thromboses were trapped by the retrievable IVC filter, and follow-up images showed thrombus capture. Thirty-four patients (48.6%) received percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA). Additional stents were inserted in 23 patients (32.8%). Pulmonary embolism (PE) was not observed in patients implanted with retrievable IVC filters.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study findings suggest that retrieval IVC filter placement during interventional treatments of DVT of lower extremity such as thrombectomy of vein thrombus with or without stent insertion at compressed deep vein is favorable and effective for protecting against PE or lethal complications. We recommend carefully that before the management of DVT thrombus of lower extremity, retrieval IVC filter placement should be considered for preventing morbidity related with the PE.

Inferior vena cava filtration in the management of venous thromboembolism: filtering the data

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality. This is especially true for hospitalized patients. Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the leading preventable cause of in-hospital mortality. The preferred method of both treatment and prophylaxis for VTE is anticoagulation. However, in a subset of patients, anticoagulation therapy is contraindicated or ineffective, and these patients often receive an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter. The sole purpose of an IVC filter is prevention of clinically significant PE. IVC filter usage has increased every year, most recently due to the availability of retrievable devices and a relaxation of thresholds for placement. Much of this recent growth has occurred in the trauma patient population given the high potential for VTE and frequent contraindication to anticoagulation. Retrievable filters, which strive to offer the benefits of permanent filters without time-sensitive complications, come with a new set of challenges including methods for filter follow-up and retrieval.

Retrievable inferior vena cava filters for venous thromboembolism

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are used as an alternative to anticoagulants for prevention of fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) in venous thromboembolic disorders. Retrievable IVC filters have become an increasingly attractive option due to the long-term risks of permanent filter placement. These devices are shown to be technically feasible in insertion and retrieval percutaneously while providing protection from PE. Nevertheless, there are complications and failed retrievals with these retrievable filters. The aim of the paper is to review the retrievable filters and their efficacy, safety, and retrievability.