Access-site thrombosis after placement of inferior vena cava filters with 12-14-F delivery sheaths

Complications of inferior vena cava filters

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement is a relatively low risk alternative for prophylaxis against pulmonary embolism in patients with pelvic or lower extremity deep venous thrombosis who are not suitable for anticoagulation. There is an increasing trend in the number of IVC filter implantation procedures performed every year. There are many device types in the market and in the early 2000s, the introduction of retrievable filters brought an additional subset of complications to consider. Modern filter designs have led to decreased morbidity and mortality, however, a thorough understanding of the limitations and complications of IVC filters is necessary to weight the risks and benefits of placing IVC filters. In this review, the complications associated with IVC filters are divided into procedure related, post-procedure, and retrieval complications. Differences amongst the device types and retrievable filters are described, though this is limited by a significant lack of prospective studies. Additionally, the clinical presentation as well as prevention and treatment strategies are outlined with each complication type.

Venous Thromboembolism and Malignant Brain Tumors: A Review

The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with primary brain tumors varies be tween 1 and 60%. This variability in incidence is due to study differences in (a) methods of diagnosis of VTE— i.e., diagnosis at autopsy or clinical diagnosis; (b) amount of time from surgery to VTE diagnosis; (c) proportion of patients receiving deep venous thrombosis (DVT) pro phylaxis ; (d) clinical risk factors associated with VTE, such as paresis, prior thrombotic disease, and chemother apy; and (e) tumor location and histology. The etiology of VTE in patients with primary brain tumors is unknown. The preoperative hemostatic abnormalities noted in clin ical studies have been most consistent with compensated disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). These ab normalities, however, appear to be of little predictive value for the subsequent development of VTE. Studies involving brain tumor tissue or cell cultures have impli cated factors released by the tumor or surrounding neural tissue that activate the coagulation system or inhibit fi brinolysis. Recommendations for VTE prophylaxis in clude (a) earliest possible ambulation; (b) intermittent pneumatic compression in all nonambulatory patients preoperatively and postoperatively; and (c) s.c. heparin in high-risk patients. The role of low-molecular-weight heparin in VTE prophylaxis has not been established. Patients with malignant brain tumors can be safely anti coagulated with heparin and warfarin if these agents are carefully monitored. Of 197 patients in seven series who received anticoagulants, only 5 (2.5%) had intracranial bleeding. Vena caval filters and thrombectomy are rarely required. Thrombolytic therapy is contraindicated. Key Words: Venous thromboembolism—Deep venous throm bosis—Malignant brain tumors.

IVC filters may prevent fatal pulmonary embolism in musculoskeletal tumor surgery

To determine whether inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement protects patients with musculoskeletal tumors from fatal pulmonary embolisms (PE), we retrospectively analyzed the records of 81 patients who underwent surgery for pelvic and lower extremity malignancies. All 81 patients received an IVC filter and mechanical compression for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis, but no pharmacologic anticoagulation. Duplex imaging was performed before hospital discharge and when clinical suspicion of DVT arose. Seventy-six of the 81 (94%) patients were followed at least 3 months (mean, 21.3 months; range, 3-77 months) postoperatively. We reviewed the perioperative medical records and office visit notes to determine the rate of clinically evident DVT, symptomatic PE, wound complications, and IVC filter-related complications. DVT and PE incidences in the early postoperative period (< 30 days) were 21% (17 of 81) and 2% (two of 81), respectively. There were no known deaths from PE. Patients undergoing reconstruction surgery (n = 41) were more likely to have early DVT develop after definitive tumor surgery. Patient age, tumor type or histology, anatomic location, presence of pathologic fracture, or development of wound complications did not correlate with an increased DVT rate. Two (3%) patients had late DVT, and none had a late PE. Combining an IVC filter with mechanical limb compression prevented fatal PE in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery for malignancies of the pelvis and lower extremity and is a reasonable form of thromboembolic prophylaxis specific for this patient population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Safety and efficacy of vena cava filters in trauma patients

Pulmonary embolism (PE), due to its sudden onset, notoriously difficult diagnosis, unpredictable nature and often fatal outcome, remains one of the most feared complications in surgical practice. Trauma patients with multisystem injuries, extremity or pelvic fractures and head or spinal cord injuries often pose a significant dilemma for the surgeon because of the inability to use conventional measures such as anticoagulation therapy and compression devices. On the other hand, the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is high among trauma patients and the attendant risk of PE is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Inferior vena cava (IVC) interruption by placement of diverse filtering devices has evolved over the past three decades. With the use of these devices, the risk of PE has been reduced dramatically. However, variable rates of complications are reported from their use. In this study, we review all the available data on IVC filter placement in trauma patients and we discuss the potential complications of IVC filters in order to understand better the risk/benefit ratio of their use.

Computed tomography imaging of vena cava filter complications: a pictorial review

Caval filters are widely used in the prevention of pulmonary embolism. Filters have proved to be effective, but the complication rate is not negligible. Computed tomography (CT) provides a complete evaluation of the filter, including both caval and extracaval complications. In this review, we describe the normal CT aspect of cava filters, the classification of complications and their CT findings. Technical considerations for adequate CT imaging are also highlighted.

Clinical experience with Günther temporary inferior vena cava filters

This retrospective study was performed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Günther temporary inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. Fifteen Günther temporary filters were placed in 13 patients because of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with pulmonary embolism (PE) despite DVT prophylaxis (9/13) or temporary contraindications for anticoagulants as well as recent or pending surgery (4/13). No clinical manifestation of PE was observed during the filtration or during the removal. Günther temporary IVC filters are easy and safe to use, and are effective in clot trapping, protecting patients at high risk for PE in whom anticoagulation treatment failed or is contraindicated.

Invasive approaches to treatment of venous thromboembolism

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) occurs in one-quarter of a million individuals annually in the United States and results in significant disability from pulmonary embolism and chronic venous insufficiency, especially when the proximal iliofemoral is involved. Treatment has centered on early institution of adequate anticoagulation to prevent thrombus propagation and embolism, but anticoagulation alone does not always restore venous patency and many patients are left with venous outflow obstruction and valvular incompetence-the anatomic underpinnings of the postthrombotic syndrome. Various strategies have been used to restore patency of thrombosed veins, including open surgical thrombectomy, pharmacological thrombolysis, and percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy. Each modality has benefits and shortcomings. Surgical thrombectomy had previously been abandoned secondary to poor long-term results. More recently, with improved techniques and better patient selection, surgical thrombectomy has regained a therapeutic role in treating acute DVT in young patients with short segment occlusions. The advent of percutaneous techniques has allowed thrombolysis, percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy, and stenting to be used in conjunction with each other-allowing for better resolution of venous clot burden than when an individual modality is used alone. Practitioners who treat patients with DVT should be familiar with all the options available to restore venous patency, preserve valvular function, and thereby minimize the risk of late postthrombotic complications.

Update on inferior vena cava filters

The ravages of thromboembolic disease continue to plague patients despite improvements in diagnostic imaging and anticoagulation regimens. In certain cases, standard medical therapy for thromboembolism is contraindicated, results in complications, or fails to adequately protect patients from embolic insults. These patients are treated with insertion of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. Although it appears that IVC filters do reduce long-term pulmonary embolism (PE) rates, there may be a higher associated incidence of IVC thrombosis and lower-extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT) than with anticoagulation alone. This article will address attributes of the theoretical ideal IVC filter, recently introduced IVC filters, complications of use of IVC filters, and results of recent IVC filter studies. Alternative sites for filter placements are then reviewed, along with use of temporary and retrievable IVC filters and use of IVC filters for prophylactic situations.

Validation of US-guided percutaneous venous access and manual compression for studies in swine

PURPOSE

To validate, in swine, the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of ultrasound (US)-guided vascular access, with manual compression for hemostasis, as an alternative to surgical cutdown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

US-guided femoral vein access was attempted 22 times in eight pigs. Bilateral access was performed in the initial procedure (eight pigs, 16 veins), and unilateral access was performed during follow-up procedures (six pigs, six veins). Two sheath sizes were used: 9 F (in eight veins) and 8 F (in 14 veins). At the completion of each procedure, the vascular sheaths were removed and hemostasis was attempted by manual compression. All animals were followed clinically for at least 24 hours after each access procedure. Bilateral US images of the femoral region were obtained in six pigs (12 puncture sites) 2 weeks after the initial procedure.

RESULTS

US-guided femoral vein access was successful in all 22 attempts, including 16 first-time insertions and six subsequent insertions. Hemostasis was achieved with 5 minutes of manual compression in all 22 procedures. No groin complications were identified on clinical follow-up or at necropsy. US imaging of the 12 femoral access points in the six pigs that underwent more than one procedure demonstrated normal femoral veins that compressed appropriately with no evidence of thrombosis or hematoma.

CONCLUSION

US-guided femoral vein access, with manual compression used for hemostasis, is a safe and effective method for venous interventions in swine. Moreover, this percutaneous technique allows the same vessel to be reused.

Vena caval filters: a comprehensive review

Hematologists are often asked to treat patients with venous thromboembolic disease. Although anticoagulation remains the primary therapy for venous thromboembolism, vena caval filters are an important alternative when anticoagulants are contraindicated. To assess the evidence supporting the utility of these devices, a comprehensive review of the English language literature was performed. Except for one randomized trial, the vena caval filter literature consists of case series or consecutive case series. The mean duration of follow-up for each of the 5 filter types varies from 6 to 18 months. All are about equally effective in the prevention of pulmonary embolism (2.6%-3.8%). Deep venous thrombosis (6%-32%) and inferior vena cava thrombosis (3.6%-11.2%) after filter placement vary widely among different filter types primarily because of differences in outcome assessment. Thrombosis at the insertion site is a common complication of filter placement (23%-36%). In view of the absence of randomized comparisons, no filter can be designated as superior in safety or efficacy. Vena caval filters represent a potentially important but poorly evaluated therapeutic modality in the prevention of pulmonary emboli. Randomized trials are necessary to establish the appropriate place for vena caval filters in the treatment of venous thromboembolic disease.

Vena caval filters: a comprehensive review

Hematologists are often asked to treat patients with venous thromboembolic disease. Although anticoagulation remains the primary therapy for venous thromboembolism, vena caval filters are an important alternative when anticoagulants are contraindicated. To assess the evidence supporting the utility of these devices, a comprehensive review of the English language literature was performed. Except for one randomized trial, the vena caval filter literature consists of case series or consecutive case series. The mean duration of follow-up for each of the 5 filter types varies from 6 to 18 months. All are about equally effective in the prevention of pulmonary embolism (2.6%-3.8%). Deep venous thrombosis (6%-32%) and inferior vena cava thrombosis (3.6%-11.2%) after filter placement vary widely among different filter types primarily because of differences in outcome assessment. Thrombosis at the insertion site is a common complication of filter placement (23%-36%). In view of the absence of randomized comparisons, no filter can be designated as superior in safety or efficacy. Vena caval filters represent a potentially important but poorly evaluated therapeutic modality in the prevention of pulmonary emboli. Randomized trials are necessary to establish the appropriate place for vena caval filters in the treatment of venous thromboembolic disease.

Inferior vena cava interruption: how and when?

Interruption of the inferior vena cava (IVC) to prevent pulmonary embolism arising from venous thrombi in the lower extremities has become widely used since IVC filters became available about 30 years ago. However, reliable data regarding efficacy and safety of IVC filters are still lacking. The first controlled clinical trial of IVC filters demonstrated their effectiveness, but filters had no detectable impact on mortality and were associated with an increased risk of recurrent deep venous thrombosis. On the basis of the literature, indications for IVC interruption can be classified as accepted, debated, and debatable. The relevance of debated indications, more accurate identification of patients who remain "very high-risk" despite preventive or curative anticoagulant treatment, and selection of the most appropriate filter should be looked at in prospective clinical studies.

Deep venous thrombosis after percutaneous insertion of vena caval filters

PURPOSE

A large multicenter study has recently questioned the overall clinical efficacy of vena caval filters, especially when inserted prophylactically, because of the subsequent development of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) at the insertion site. We examined the incidence of this complication with newer, smaller diameter percutaneous devices.

METHODS

We reviewed our vascular surgery and interventional radiology clinical registries to identify patients in whom a femoral percutaneous vena caval filter had been placed from 1993 to 1998. This list was cross referenced with patients who had undergone lower extremity venous ultrasound scan examinations for the diagnosis of DVT in the vascular laboratory within a 60-day period before and after the insertion of the filter device.

RESULTS

A total of 35 patients during this 5-year period had timely follow-up venous duplex scan studies performed. The indications for filter placement were DVT in 16 patients (46%), pulmonary embolus in 13 patients (37%), DVT and pulmonary embolus in three patients (9%), and prophylactically in three patients (9%) at high risk for thromboembolization. Of the patients with documented thromboembolic events, 91% (29 of 32) had contraindications to anticoagulation therapy, and the remaining 9% (3 of 32) represented failure of anticoagulation therapy. A Greenfield filter was used in 13 patients (37%), a Simon Nitinol filter was used in 11 patients (31%), and a VenaTech filter was used in nine patients (26%). The other two patients (6%) had a Bird's Nest filter inserted. At a mean follow-up period of 12 +/- 2 days (median, 6 days), there was a 40% (14 of 35) incidence of proximal DVT in venous segments without evidence of thrombus before filter insertion. The majority (71%; 10 of 14) occurred in the common femoral vein, with three located in the superficial femoral vein and one in the external iliac vein. The lowest incidence of DVT was seen with the Greenfield and Bird's Nest filters as compared with the smaller Simon Nitinol and VenaTech filters (20% vs 55%; P < .05). The highest incidence of thrombosis occurred in patients with pre-insertion pulmonary emboli (50%; 8 of 16) as compared with those patients with DVT (38%; 6 of 16) and prophylactic insertion (0%; 0 of 3). However, the subgroups were too small to attain statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

There is a continuing and significant incidence of new DVT development ipsilateral to the percutaneous femoral insertion site of vena caval filters. The smaller diameter filters are not associated with a lower incidence of femoral thrombosis.

Percutaneous venous interventions

Percutaneous procedures by interventional radiologists are becoming an increasingly frequent part of the overall care of patients with complex venous thrombotic diseases. Inferior vena caval filters are used in the setting of failed or contraindicated anticoagulation. Catheter-directed thrombolysis is considered for patients with extensive iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis. Venous angioplasty is often indicated for patients with dialysis shunt venous stenoses, upper extremity venous stenoses and for stenoses within venous bypass grafts. Venous stenting is often employed following angioplasty to ensure long-term procedural success. Finally, suction and mechanical thrombectomy and embolectomy are relatively new procedures that are available to optimize patient management.

Clinical experience with temporary vena caval filters

PURPOSE

To look at the benefits and complications of different vena caval filters inserted prophylactically. Three temporarily implantable caval filter systems were used in 67 patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve Cook filters (six transjugular, six transfemoral), 11 Angiocor filters (one transjugular, 10 transbrachial), and 44 Antheor filters (three transjugular, four transfemoral, 37 transbrachial) were successfully implanted. In known iliac vein or caval thrombosis, the prophylactic filters were placed during thrombolytic therapy in 46 cases, surgery in 17 cases, thrombosis in pregnancy in three cases, and high-dose heparinization without lysis in one case.

RESULTS

One patient had a fatal pulmonary embolism during treatment; seven thrombi were detected in the filter. Other complications were caused either by the underlying therapy alone (one fatal outcome of abdominal aorta aneurysmal surgery, two cases of cerebral hemorrhage, two cases of retroperitoneal hematomas, two cases of streptokinase fever reactions, one compartment syndrome, two cases of macrohematuria), by the combination of therapy and caval filter implantation (three cases of groin hematomas, three cases of arm hematomas), or by filter implantation alone (two cases of subclavian vein thrombosis, one catheter infection, one dislocation, one air embolism, one basket rupture). The bleeding complications were related to the aggressive thrombolytic therapy and would have occurred without filter implantation.

CONCLUSION

Because temporary caval filters have no long-term complications per se, their use seems sensible as long as there are stringent indications, including the presence of iliac vein or caval thrombosis and risk of thrombus mobilization. The Antheor filter system was the most convenient system for implantation.

Long-term results of vena cava filters: experiences with the LGM and the Titanium Greenfield devices

PURPOSE

Vena cava filter (VCF) application is the method of choice to prevent recurrent pulmonary embolism in patients with deep venous thrombosis. Because of the reported complications after VCF placement we summarize our long-term follow-up results with the LGM and Titanium Greenfield (TG) devices.

METHODS

Eighty-seven LGM VCF and 17 TG VCF were placed in 104 patients (average age 64 years). The follow-up examinations were performed by color-coded duplex sonography, plain radiographs, cavography, and computed tomography (CT). The maximum observation time was 81 months.

RESULTS

Filter migration occurred in 11% (8/76) of the LGM VCF and 15% (2/13) of the TG VCF. Vena cava thrombosis was seen in 17% (13/76) of the patients with an LGM VCF and in 31% (4/13) of those with a TG VCF. The patency rate was 95% (72/76) for the LGM VCF and 92% (12/13) for the TG VCF. Pulmonary embolism was noted in 3 patients after LGM VCF insertion and in no patient after TG VCF insertion.

CONCLUSION

A VCF should only be inserted in a patient after pulmonary embolism and when there is strict proof of the indication.

Therapy of venous thromboembolism in patients with brain metastases

BACKGROUND

Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) are common in patients with brain metastases. Few data exist to help guide the clinician's choice between the two therapeutic options of anticoagulation and inferior vena cava filter placement.

METHODS

The authors reviewed their institutions' experience with the treatment of venous thromboembolism in 51 adult patients with known brain metastases since 1980.

RESULTS

Ten patients were initially treated with Greenfield filters; four (40%) had recurrent nonfatal thromboembolic events (two PE and two DVT), and three required anticoagulation. Thirty-nine patients were treated initially with anticoagulation; none of these patients later received filters. Two patients with DVT were untreated and both died of PE. Among 42 patients who received anticoagulation, the duration of anticoagulation ranged from 5 to 563 days (mean, 100 days). Two patients who received anticoagulation experienced devastating central nervous system hemorrhage in the setting of supratherapeutic anticoagulation by conventional laboratory criteria. A third patient experienced a minor deterioration, possibly attributable to hemorrhage, for a 7% (3 of 42) incidence of serious central nervous system complications. Three asymptomatic patients developed hyperdensity within metastases on routine follow-up noncontrast computed tomography scan, suggesting possible intratumoral hemorrhage. Three patients taking warfarin had recurrent DVT with prothrombin time between 15.1 and 17.7. Systemic bleeding complications were generally minor and occurred in only eight patients (19%).

CONCLUSIONS

Anticoagulation is more effective than Greenfield filters and acceptably safe when maintained in the therapeutic range in most patients with brain metastases and venous thromboembolism.