Experience with the Recovery Filter as a Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter

Inferior vena cava filter fracture with strut migration on CT with volume rendering

We present the computed tomography findings in a patient with a fractured IVC filter and migration of a broken strut to the right lower quadrant. The filter morphology and strut fragment are well demonstrated on volume rendered images confirming the value of volumetric 3D computed tomography imaging to evaluate IVC filter integrity and identify migrated filter fragments.

Prevention of Deep Venous Thromboembolism

The nature of many combat wounds puts patients at a high risk of developing deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), which fall under the broader disease category of venous thromboembolism (VTE). In addition to the hypercoagulable state induced by trauma, massive injuries to the extremities, prolonged immobility, and long fixed wing transport times to higher echelons of care are unique risk factors for venous thromboembolism in the combat-injured patient. These risk factors mandate aggressive prophylaxis for DVT and PE that can effectively be achieved by the use of lower extremity sequential compression devices and low dose unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin. In addition, inferior vena cava filters are often used for PE prophylaxis when chemical DVT prophylaxis fails or is contraindicated. The following Department of Defense (DoD) Joint Trauma System (JTS) Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) discusses the current recommendations for the prevention of DVT and PE including the use of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs).

Design and evaluation of a novel biodegradable inferior vena cava filter

Inferior vena cava filter has been increasingly applied in clinical practice to prevent pulmonary embolism. Nowadays, various complications after implanting conventional filters seriously hinder clinical applications. Therefore, in this paper, a novel biodegradable inferior vena cava filter was designed based on biodegradable materials, which is an hourglass-like filter anchored inside a stent structure fixed by connecting fibers. Firstly, mechanical tests in crimp were performed to study the expansion properties of the filter, showing that the biodegradable inferior vena cava filter could achieve self-expansion easily. Furthermore, the biodegradable inferior vena cava filters and fibers were incubated in phosphate buffer media (pH = 7.4 ± 0.2) at 37°C for six months. Scanning electron microscope micrograph showed that the stents exhibited no significant dimensional and structural changes and had enough radial force to support the vessel. During the degradation period, the results of scanning electron microscope, gel permeation chromatography, differential scanning calorimetry and tensile strength analysis confirmed that the degradation rate of the hourglass-like filter was faster than the connecting fibers, achieving progressive degradation and thus avoiding the polymer fragments from blocking vessel. Cytotoxicity and hemolysis assay demonstrated good biocompatibility of the filter. For 5 mm × 10 mm sized thrombus, in vitro simulated thrombus capture test showed that the mean trapping efficiency of the filter was 90%, which was comparable to traditional inferior vena cava filter. In conclusion, all results exhibited that the as-designed biodegradable inferior vena cava filter has a potential in clinical application for patients who are at temporary high risk of venous thromboembolism.

Vena Cava Filters: A Synopsis of Complications and Related Topics

Deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism constitute common preventable causes of morbidity and mortality. The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) continues to increase. Standard anticoagulation therapy may reduce the risk of fatal PE by 75% and that of recurrent VTE by over 90%. For patients who are not candidates for anticoagulation, a vena cava filter (VCF) may be beneficial. Despite a good overall safety record, significant complications related to VCF are occasionally seen. This review discusses both procedural and non-procedural complications associated with VCF placement and use. We will also discuss VCF use in the settings of pregnancy, malignancy, and the clinical need for more than one filter.

Are too many inferior vena cava filters used? Controversial evidences in different clinical settings: a narrative review

The use of inferior vena cava filters to prevent pulmonary embolism is increasing mainly because of indications that appear to be unclearly codified and recommended. The evidence supporting this approach is often heterogeneous, and mainly based on observational studies and consensus opinions, while the insertion of an IVC filter exposes patients to the risk of complications and increases health care costs. Thus, several proposed indications for an IVC filter placement remain controversial. We attempt to review the proof on the efficacy and safety of IVC filters in several "special" clinical settings, and assess the robustness of the available evidence for any specific indication to place an IVC filter.

Ten-year experience of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in a tertiary referral center

PURPOSE

A significant proportion of patients undergoing surgery have an increased incidence of acute pulmonary embolus (PE). We analyzed all patients who had a retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placed preoperatively for PE prophylaxis and investigated the long-term outcomes of the patients who did not have their filter removed.

METHODS

Patients who underwent retrievable IVC filter insertion and attempted removal were identified from the radiology information systems database in a large tertiary referral university teaching hospital. Results of all clinical investigations (including computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, and plain radiography) while the IVC filters were in situ were reviewed.

RESULTS

In total, 393 retrievable IVC filters were inserted, 254 with the indication of preoperative thromboembolic prophylaxis. Recurrent PE was reported in five patients (1.9%) despite the IVC filter. Of the 254 retrievable filters inserted prior to surgery, an attempt at retrieval was made in 168 filters (66.1%). Successful retrieval at the first attempt occurred in 143 cases (85.1%), while 25 cases failed or were aborted (14.9%). No attempt at retrieval was made in 86 (33.9%) patients and a significant proportion of these patients had undergone cancer surgery (P < 0.0107). In those patients where there was no attempt at retrieval, there was an association between cancer surgery and a shorter absolute survival time (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The majority of attempted filter retrievals were successful, and a proportion of nonretrieved IVC filters are accounted for in patients who underwent cancer surgery and ultimately died with the filter in situ. A departmental protocol is recommended to ensure the filter is removed where appropriate and possible.

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.

Extravascular Migration of a Fractured Inferior Vena Cava Filter Strut

A 20-year-old man presented with a femur fracture and epidural hemorrhage (EDH) following a fall. One month after fracture surgery, swelling developed in both legs, and he was diagnosed as having a deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. A retrievable inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) was inserted, because EDH is a contraindication to anticoagulants. Four months later, he complained of abdominal pain, and a computed tomography scan showed a fractured IVCF strut. After percutaneous removal failed 3 times, the IVCF was surgically removed by orthopedists using a portable image intensifier without cardiopulmonary bypass.

Optional Vena Cava Filters: What, Why, and When

Optional vena cava filters can used to provide either short-term or permanent protection from pulmonary embolism. These devices have recently become available for clinical use in the United States. However, there remains a paucity of data about these devices and their outcomes. This article reviews current and future devices, the rationale behind non-permanent caval filtration, and the generally accepted guidelines for their clinical application.

Utility of Retrievable Vena Cava Filters and Mechanical Thrombectomy in the Endovascular Management of Acute Deep Venous Thrombosis

Endovascular interventions of symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) using various therapeutic modalities, such as thrombolysis, mechanical thrombectomy, and inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement, have received increased focus owing in part to advances in catheter-based interventional technologies. Although systemic anticoagulation remains the primary treatment modality in DVT, catheter-based interventions can provide rapid removal of large thrombus burden and possibly preserve venous valvular function in patients with symptomatic DVT. This article reviews current endovascular treatment strategies for acute DVT. Specifically, the utility of mechanical thrombectomy along with various temporary IVC filters in the setting of DVT is examined. Lastly, an illustrative case of acute DVT that was treated with endovascular intervention with IVC filter placement is presented.

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.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Indications, Outcomes, and Evidence

OPINION STATEMENT

Filter technology seems relatively stable, although absorbable devices are an area of investigational interest. The indications for filter placement remain controversial, with wide variations in adherence to guidelines, and relatively poor quality of data about the specific prophylactic indications of trauma or bariatric surgery. The outcomes of filters are not well-defined despite widespread clinical use, and good data remains difficult to obtain. Several larger database and institutional retrospective studies support the notions that while filters prevent pulmonary embolism, they may be associated with venous thrombotic complications. Some subsets of cancer patients may be at increased risk of these complications, but whether the filter or the underlying hypercoagulable state is the cause is not clear. Lastly, although the benefits of filter retrieval are widely assumed (but not proven), filter retrieval rates remain lower than expected. The single most influential factor in improving filter retrieval rates is dedicated follow-up with intent to retrieve the filter.

Pilot in vivo study of an absorbable polydioxanone vena cava filter

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study were to evaluate tensile strength retention of polydioxanone as a function of time in a swine venous system and to assess the feasibility of an absorbable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter made from polydioxanone in a pilot swine study.

METHODS

Twenty strands (60 cm each) of size 1 polydioxanone absorbable suture (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ) were placed in the central venous system of domestic swine. Strands were harvested at weekly intervals during 10 weeks for tensile strength testing. Results were compared with control samples obtained from an in vitro engineered circulation system containing sodium phosphate buffer solution. Three IVC filters braided from polydioxanone suture were also catheter deployed in three swine to assess absorbable IVC filter feasibility.

RESULTS

Polydioxanone retained 82% tensile strength in vitro vs 79% in vivo at 35 days (P > .22), the desired prophylactic duration. For IVC filters made from polydioxanone, technical success of placement was achieved in all three filters deployed (100%). Autologous thrombus deployed inferior to the filter remained trapped in the filter until thrombus resorption, with no evidence of pulmonary emboli on follow-up computed tomography. There were no instances of caval penetration, filter-induced IVC thrombosis, filter migration, or tilt >15 degrees with imaging and clinical follow-up carried out to 32 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Strength retention of polydioxanone suture placed in the venous system of swine is similar to earlier in vitro studies out to 10 weeks (P > .06 for all weeks) and is more than sufficient (8.20 ± 0.37 kg mean load at break for size 1) to trap thrombus. Pilot animal study suggests that an absorbable polydioxanone IVC filter can be catheter deployed to capture and to hold iatrogenically administered autologous thrombus through resorption.

An unexpected cause of pericardial effusion

We present a case of pericardial effusion due to embolization of a fragment of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter, with subsequent perforation of the right ventricle. This is a rare and unexpected cause of pericardial effusion. Fracture or embolization of IVC filters is a relatively uncommon complication, but these events may have serious clinical implications. Although IVC filters are often placed with the intent of removal, the device in many patients is never removed. The long-term implications of IVC filter placement must be kept in mind when making decisions about device placement and subsequent removal.

Penetration of an inferior vena cava filter into the aorta

Transvenous placement of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters is commonly performed in selected patients with deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. However, filter placement is sometimes associated with serious complications. A common complication is asymptomatic perforation of the IVC and penetration of adjacent organs by the filter. Here, we report a case of an 83-year-old man whose prophylactic IVC filter penetrated the aorta. The patient was closely followed without surgical intervention for more than a year, and no additional complications were observed.

Tempofilter II implantation in patients with lower extremity fractures and proximal deep vein thrombosis

PURPOSE

We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of Tempofilter II (B. Braun, Melsungen, Germany) implantation to prevent pulmonary embolism in patients with lower-extremity fractures and proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The records of patients with lower limb fractures and proximal DVT who were implanted with Tempofilter II devices from May 2004 to August 2009 were reviewed. Data collected included success rate, occurrence of pulmonary embolism, retrieval rate, and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 176 eligible patients, including 129 males (73.3%) and 47 females (26.7%) with a median age of 42.0 years (interquartile range [IQR], 34.0-52.0 years) were included in the study. Filters were successfully implanted in 174 patients (98.9%). One patient experienced a pulmonary embolism after implantation and died. Filters were removed without complications in all other patients. Median filter implantation time was 27 days (IQR, 25.0-29.0 days). Visible organized thrombi were present on the surface of 144 (82.8%) of filters after removal, and the diameter of most thrombi (n=124) ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 cm. Filters migrated <2 cm in 104 patients (59.8%) and ≥ 2 cm in five patients (2.9%). In these five cases, three filters migrated into the right atrium and two migrated to the orifice of the renal veins.

CONCLUSION

Tempofilter II is safe and may be useful in cases of lower extremity fracture with proximal DVT for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. The filter is easily placed and retrieved, and associated with minimal complications.

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 vena cava filters: a clinical review

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Parenteral anticoagulant treatment with full-dose unfractioned heparin, low-molecular-weight-heparin, or fondaparinux, followed by oral treatment with the vitamin K antagonists, is recommended for the majority of patients. However, in the presence of contraindications to anticoagulant treatment, bleeding complications during antithrombotic treatment, or VTE recurrences despite optimal anticoagulation, interruption of the inferior vena cava with a filter is a potential option aimed to prevent life-threatening PE. Currently, the vast majority of filters implanted worldwide are of the permanent type, but their use is associated with a number of long term complications. Non-permanent filters represent an important alternative, and in particular retrievable filters are an attractive option because they may be either left in place permanently or safely retrieved after a quite long period when they become unnecessary. In this review, we summarize the currently available literature regarding retrievable vena cava filters and we discuss current evidences on their efficacy and safety. Moreover, the appropriate indications for their use in daily clinical practice are reviewed.

The use of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters in trauma patients: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Pulmonary embolisms (PE) are an often preventable cause of late morbidity and mortality after trauma. Although there is evidence for the use of therapeutic inferior vena cava (IVC) filters (defined as IVC filters implanted in those with proven deep venous thrombosis [DVT] in order to prevent PE), there is not as much evidence to support the use of prophylactic IVC filters. Thus, we undertook a systematic review of the literature to assess the following in prophylactic IVC filters: efficacy in PE reduction, prevalence of filter-related complications and the indications for use.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After screening 249 studies, 24 studies met inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis.

RESULTS

Overall, the literature is supportive of the use of prophylactic IVC filters in high-risk poly-trauma patients who may have contraindications to DVT prophylaxis. Filter-associated complications are uncommon and, when they do occur, tend to be of limited clinical significance. Limited data, mostly in the form of case series, supports a reduction in PE and PE-related mortality. There has been increasing use of retrievable filters as well as the ability to safely retrieve them at longer intervals.

CONCLUSION

Despite the addition of a few matched-control studies, the literature is still plagued by a lack of high quality data, and therefore the true efficacy of prophylactic IVC filters for prevention of PE in trauma patients remains unclear. Further studies are required to determine the true role of prophylactic IVC filters in trauma patient.

Systematic review of the use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters

PURPOSE

To review the available literature on retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters to examine the effectiveness and risks of these devices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Investigators searched MEDLINE for clinical trials evaluating retrievable filters and reviewed the complications reported to the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

RESULTS

Eligibility criteria were met by 37 studies comprising 6,834 patients. All of the trials had limitations, and no studies were randomized. There were 11 prospective clinical trials; the rest were retrospective studies. Despite the limitations of the evidence, the IVC filters seemed to be effective in preventing pulmonary embolism (PE); the rate of PE after IVC placement was 1.7%. The mean retrieval rate was 34%. Most of the filters became permanent devices. Multiple complications associated with the use of IVC filters were described in the reviewed literature or were reported to the MAUDE database; most of these were associated with long-term use (> 30 days). At the present time, the objective comparison data of different filter designs do not support superiority of any particular design.

CONCLUSIONS

In high-risk patients for whom anticoagulation is not feasible, retrievable IVC filters seem to be effective in preventing PE. Long-term complications are a serious concern with the use of these filters. The evidence of the effectiveness and the risks was limited by the small number of prospective studies.

Interventional treatment of venous thromboembolism: a review

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is the third most common cardiovascular disease after coronary artery disease and cerebrovascular disease and is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality in the general population. Full dose anticoagulation is the standard therapy for VTE, both for the acute and the long-term phase. The latest guidelines of the American College of Chest Physicians recommend treatment with a full-dose of unfractioned heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight-heparin (LMWH), fondaparinux, vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or thrombolysis for most patients with objectively confirmed VTE. Catheter-guided thrombolysis and trombosuction are interventional approaches that should be used only in selected populations; interruption of the inferior vena cava (IVC) with a filter can be performed to prevent life-threatening PE in patients with VTE and contraindications to anticoagulant treatment, bleeding complications during antithrombotic treatment, or VTE recurrences despite optimal anticoagulation. In this review we summarize the currently available literature regarding interventional approaches for VTE treatment (vena cava filters, catheter-guided thrombolysis, thrombosuction) and we discuss current evidences on their efficacy and safety. Moreover, the appropriate indications for their use in daily clinical practice are reviewed.

Complications of inferior vena caval filters

Inferior vena caval filters have been shown to be effective in the prevention of pulmonary embolism, with low morbidity and mortality associated with their implantation. Awareness of potential complications can further decrease the risk of filter placement and lead to early detection and management of complications to improve clinical outcomes. The purpose of this article is to review the procedure-related and delayed complications associated with inferior vena caval filters.

Retrieval of a wall-embedded recovery inferior vena cava filter using rigid bronchoscopy forceps

Optional inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are an attractive option to help prevent pulmonary embolism because these filters can be retrieved when the risk for thromboembolic events has passed. Retrieval of IVC filters can be difficult if the filter tilts and its tip becomes embedded into the wall of the IVC. A case is presented in which rigid bronchoscopy forceps were used to retrieve a filter that had become embedded in the wall of the IVC.

Rates and predictors of plans for inferior vena cava filter retrieval in hospitalized patients

BACKGROUND

Use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters has been increasing over time. However, because of the increased risk of deep vein thrombosis with permanent filters, placement of retrievable filters has been recommended. Little is known about the factors associated with planned retrieval of IVC filters.

OBJECTIVE

To describe rates and predictors of plans to retrieve IVC filters in hospitalized patients.

DESIGN

We identified all IVC filter placements from 2001-2006 at an academic medical center and reviewed medical charts to obtain data about patient characteristics, filter retrieval plans, and retrieval success rates. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of planned filter retrieval in patients with retrievable filters.

RESULTS

Out of 240 patients who underwent placement of retrievable IVC filters, only 73 (30.4%) had documented plans for filter retrieval. Factors associated with lower rates of planned filter retrieval included a history of cancer [adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval 0.2 (0.1-0.5)] and not being discharged on anticoagulants [OR 0.1 (0.1-0.3)]. In addition, 36 (21.6%) of patients without retrieval plans had no contraindications to retrieval. Of the 62 patients who underwent attempted filter retrieval, 25.8% of filters could not be successfully removed.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 30.4% of patients who underwent placement of a retrievable IVC filter had documented plans for filter removal. Although most patients had justifiable reasons for filter retention, 21.6% of patients had no clear contraindications to filter removal. Efforts to improve rates of filter retrieval in appropriate patients may help reduce the long-term complications of IVC filters.

Crux vena cava filter

Inferior vena cava filters are widely accepted for pulmonary embolic prophylaxis in high-risk patients with contraindications to anticoagulation. While long-term complications have been associated with permanent filters, retrievable filters are now available and have resulted in the rapid expansion of this technology. Nonetheless, complications are still reported with optional filters. Furthermore, device tilting and thrombus load may prevent retrieval in up to 30% of patients, thereby eliminating the benefits of this technology. The Crux vena cava filter is a novel, self-centering, low-profile filter that is designed for ease of delivery, retrievability and improved efficacy while limiting fatigue-related device complications. This device has been proven safe and user-friendly in an ovine model and has recently been implanted in human subjects.

Retrievable vena cava filters: a clinical review

Vena cava filters were developed as a method of preventing pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) at risk for bleeding from therapeutic anticoagulation. However, the long-term complications of filter placement, such as caval thrombosis, have mitigated some of the benefits, particularly in those patients with only a temporary contraindication to anticoagulation. Retrievable filters were designed to avoid the long-term risks of a permanent filter while still providing short-term protection against PE. As a result, their use has expanded from patients with known thrombosis to those without VTE who are at high risk for developing PE. In this review, we discuss the different types of retrievable filters, indications for their placement, complications that can occur during and after placement, and their use as prophylaxis in surgical patients. Although the use of retrievable filters in patients with known VTE is clear, further studies are needed to establish their prophylactic efficacy in the surgical patient. Until this evidence is available, we recommend that retrievable filters should be used only in patients with acute VTE who are at risk for recurrent thromboembolism and have a transient risk for bleeding.

Optional vena cava filters: indications, management, and results

BACKGROUND

When anticoagulation is contraindicated or ineffective, optional vena cava filters can be used to prevent pulmonary embolism. These devices can be removed within a defined period of time or can remain in the vena cava permanently.

METHODS

The status of optional vena cava filters was studied by a review of the relevant literature found in a selective Medline search from 2000 to 2008, including a Cochrane review and published guidelines.

RESULTS

Optional vena cava filter can be removed up to 20 weeks or even longer after insertion (depending on the filter model) in a small interventional radiological procedure if therapeutic anticoagulation has been achieved or the patient is no longer at risk for venous thromboembolism. Current studies show comparable results for optional filters and permanent filters, but there have not yet been any prospective studies comparing the two filter types.

CONCLUSIONS

Optional vena cava filters are an important addition to the management of venous thromboembolic disease. As only limited data are available to date, the use of optional filters should be considered on an individual case basis.