Prophylactic Implantation of Inferior Vena Cava Filter during Endovascular Therapies for Deep Venous Thrombosis of the Lower Extremities

Popliteal Access in the Supine Position for Endovenous Management of Deep Vein Thrombosis

Introduction

The preferred venous access site for percutaneous management of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is the popliteal vein, with the patient in the prone position. Owing to the need for additional venous access, including the jugular or femoral veins, popliteal access in the prone position requires supine repositioning of the patient. A technique for puncturing the popliteal vein in the supine position is proposed, which allows for additional venous access in the same position in patients with DVT.

Report

Ultrasound guided popliteal vein access was obtained in the supine position and then pharmacomechanical thrombectomy and iliocaval stent placement was performed for the management of DVT when indicated.

Discussion

Eight patients were included (four men, four women; mean ± standard deviation age of 44.2 ± 14.1 years). Popliteal access was performed successfully in the supine position in all patients. An inferior vena cava filter was inserted in five patients and stents were placed in four. Complete recanalisation of occluded vein segments was obtained successfully with popliteal access in supine position in all patients. None of the patients had early or late complications, including arterial puncture, bleeding, haematoma, or neurological disorder. Veins and stents were patent on duplex ultrasound in all seven patients reaching the six month follow up. One patient with patent veins and stents has not yet reached the six month follow up. The technique of popliteal vein access in the supine position for percutaneous endovenous interventions appears to provide a reliable alternative to access in the prone position.

•

Popliteal access for percutaneous management of deep vein thrombosis may require the patient to be supine.

•

A technique of puncturing the popliteal vein in the supine position is proposed.

•

Popliteal access was performed successfully in eight patients.

•

Complete recanalisation of occluded vein segments was achieved successfully.

•

Veins and stents were patent on duplex ultrasound at the six month follow up.

Inferior vena cava filter insertion through the popliteal vein: enabling the percutaneous endovenous intervention of deep vein thrombosis with a single venous access approach in a single session

PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate the efficiency of placing an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter through the same popliteal vein access site used for percutaneous endovenous intervention in patients with extensive lower extremity deep vein thrombosis.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 21 patients who underwent IVC filter insertion through the popliteal vein over a three-year period. Patient medical records were reviewed for the location of the deep vein thrombosis, result of filter removal, and total number of endovascular procedures needed for filter insertion and recanalization of the lower extremity venous system. Follow-up lower extremity computed tomography (CT) venography was also reviewed in each patient to assess the degree of filter tilt in the IVC.

RESULTS

All patients had extensive lower extremity deep vein thrombosis involving the iliac vein and/or femoral vein. Seventeen patients showed deep vein thrombosis of the calf veins. In all patients, IVC filter insertion and the recanalization procedure were performed during a single procedure through the single popliteal vein access site. In the 17 patients undergoing follow-up CT, the mean tilt angle of the filter was 7.14°±4.48° in the coronal plane and 8.77°±5.49° in the sagittal plane. Filter retrieval was successful in 16 of 17 patients (94.1%) in whom filter retrieval was attempted.

CONCLUSION

Transpopliteal IVC filter insertion is an efficient technique that results in low rates of significant filter tilt and enables a single session procedure using a single venous access site for filter insertion and percutaneous endovenous intervention.

Patterns of use and outcome of inferior vena cava filters in a tertiary care setting

BACKGROUND

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement is increasing although the evidence to justify their use is limited. Many filters are left in place indefinitely, thereby exposing patients to long-term complications.

OBJECTIVES

To review indications, complications, and follow-up data of patients undergoing IVC filter placement at our center.

METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive admitted patients who underwent IVC filter insertion in a large university hospital with a level I trauma center. Thrombosis specialists retrospectively assessed the appropriateness of indication for IVC filter placement as well as referral for retrieval.

RESULTS

Overall, 405 filters were inserted between 2009 and 2013. All filters were retrievable. IVC filter was placed as a primary prevention in 42% of patients. Fifty-two patients (12.8%) experienced at least one filter-related complication. The most common complication was deep vein thrombosis occurring in 6.9% of cases. Almost a third of all complications occurred in filters originally placed for prophylactic indications. Only 13.6% of filters were successfully removed. Nevertheless, according to our reviewers, an attempt for filter retrieval should have been made in 57% of all cases and in 86% of trauma patients. A significantly higher retrieval rate was found in patients followed at our thrombosis clinic (P < 0.01). During follow-up, 95 patients (23.4%) died, most of them with active cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

IVC filters are placed in many cases for prophylactic indications. Their low retrieval rates together with relatively high risk of long-term complications, questions their extensive utilization. Prospective trials addressing the safety and efficacy of IVC filters are still warranted.