Removal of Vena Caval Filter at 224 Days

Inferior vena cava filters in the management of venous thromboembolism

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, both retrievable and permanent, are indicated for the prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients contraindicated for anticoagulant therapy, in those with anticoagulant therapy complications, and perhaps for those with recurrent PE despite therapeutic anticoagulation. Because of the lack of randomized controlled trials (only 1 has been published), clinicians have little evidence-based information to assist them in determining proper use of IVC filters. The introduction of retrievable filters and the ease of insertion have stimulated increased use of these devices without strong evidence or follow-up to assess either efficacy or longer-term clinical outcomes. Current evidence-based guidelines recommend IVC filter insertion only in patients with proven venous thromboembolism and an absolute contraindication for anticoagulation.

Gunther Tulip Retrievable Inferior Vena Caval Filters: Indications, Efficacy, Retrieval, and Complications

PURPOSE

We evaluated the Gunther Tulip (GT) retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter with regard to indications, filtration efficacy, complications, retrieval window, and use of anticoagulation.

METHOD

A retrospective study was performed of 147 patients (64 men, 83 women; mean age 58.8 years) who underwent retrievable GT filter insertion between 2001 and 2005. The indications for placement included a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis with a contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 68), pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis while on anticoagulation (n = 49), prophylactic filter placement for high-risk surgical patients with a past history of pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis (n = 20), and a high risk of pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis (n = 10). Forty-nine of the 147 patients did not receive anticoagulation (33.7%) while 96 of 147 patients did, 82 of these receiving warfarin (56.5%), 11 receiving low-molecular weight heparins (7.58%), and 3 receiving antiplatelet agents alone (2.06%).

RESULTS

Filter placement was successful in 147 patients (100%). Two patients had two filters inserted. Of the 147 patients, filter deployment was on a permanent basis in 102 and with an intention to retrieve in 45 patients. There were 36 (80%) successful retrievals and 9 (20%) failed retrievals. The mean time to retrieval was 33.6 days. The reasons for failed retrieval included filter struts tightly adherent to the IVC wall (5/9), extreme filter tilt (2/9), and extensive filter thrombus (2/9). Complications included pneumothorax (n = 4), failure of filter expansion (n = 1), and breakthrough pulmonary embolism (n = 1). No IVC thrombotic episodes were recorded.

DISCUSSION

The Gunther Tulip retrievable filter can be used as a permanent or a retrievable filter. It is safe and efficacious. GT filters can be safely retrieved at a mean time interval of 33.6 days. The newly developed Celect filter may extend the retrieval interval.

Retrievable and Permanent Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Selected Considerations

The use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters is increasing rapidly, and the recent availability of retrievable IVC filters is certain to accelerate this process. Unfortunately, because the risks and benefits of these devices have not been adequately studied, several important issues remain. Limitations of the quality of the data in the available literature make it virtually impossible to accurately quantify the specific rates of complications with various devices. Although many clinicians believe that the use of an IVC filter obviates anticoagulation, new data support the need for long-term anticoagulation in such patients. The recent introduction of retrievable IVC filters may eliminate the need for long-term anticoagulation if the filter can be removed, but further data are needed to ascertain the place of these devices in modern therapy. The increasing use of these devices increases the need for clinicians to be aware of the potential limitations and risks of IVC filters.