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

Long-Term Outcomes in Patients with Not-Retrieval Inferior Vena Cava Filter Under Anticoagulation

Since permanent inferior vena cava (IVC) filters increase deep vein thrombosis (DVT), filter retrieval should be performed as possible. Despite the guideline recommendation, IVC filters are not always retrieved in clinical practice. To date, many patients with not-retrieval IVC filters have been prescribed anticoagulant therapy, but the long-term prognosis, including venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding events, remains unknown. In this study, 195 patients who underwent IVC filter implantation between 2006 and 2017 at 3 institutions in Niigata City have been investigated about their deaths, VTE recurrence, and bleeding events. After peaking 2009, the number of IVC filter implantation gradually decreased. During observational period, there were 158 patients with not-retrieval IVC filters (the overall retrieval rate of 19.0%). The not-retrieval group included significantly older and more patients with cancer compared to the retrieval group. Anticoagulation therapy was continued in 88% of the not-retrieval group. During a mean follow-up of 5.0 years, 6 symptomatic DVT events associated with inadequate control of anticoagulation and 13 bleeding events were observed. A total of 52 patients died and only the presence of cancer was prognostic risk factor. Although long-term anticoagulation therapy may be associated with bleeding events, there were few recurrent VTE under optimal anticoagulation. It is anticipated that even if the IVC filter cannot be retrieved, appropriate anticoagulation is useful for prevention of DVT recurrence despite the risk of bleeding.

A single center 9-year experience in IVC filter retrieval - the importance of an IVC filter registry

Background

To evaluate Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval practices over a 9-year period at an academic hospital with a prospectively maintained IVC filter registry.

Method

An IVC filter registry was maintained prospectively within our institution. We reviewed cases between August 2011 and June 2020, following filter status, retrieval plans, and eventual retrieval date. The validity of the database was cross referenced with a Picture Archiving and Communication System and patient records.

Results

Three hundred forty-three patients had IVC filters inserted. Three filter types were used, Celect (Cook Medical) in 189, Gunther Tulip (GT) (Cook Medical) in 65, ALN (ALN) in 89. 196 (57%) filters were retrieved, 108 (31.5%) were made permanent, 36 (10.5%) died before retrieval, and 3 (1%) were yet to be retrieved.

Retrieval rates were 92.5% overall (86% for GT, 93% for Celect and 94.5% for ALN). The mean dwell time for successful retrieval was 59 days with the majority of insertions (85%) removed in under 100 days. Failed initial retrieval occurred in 23 patients, 10 (43%) were retrieved at second attempt, 13/23 filters remained in-situ and were deemed permanent.

Conclusion

The removal of IVC filters, when indication for insertion has past, is no longer the sole responsibility of the referring physician but also the responsibility of the Interventionalist. Our retrieval rates of 92.5% of eligible IVC filters highlights the value of maintaining a prospective IVC filter registry.

Comparative efficacy and safety of the Captus device for inferior vena cava filter retrieval

PURPOSE

Retrievable inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) have been increasingly used for mechanical pulmonary embolism prophylaxis since their development. The Captus Vascular Retrieval System (Avantec Vascular, Sunnyvale, California) is a new device developed for retrieval of IVCF. This study compared the safety and efficacy of the new Captus device against the existing EnSnare Endovascular Snare System (Merit Medical, South Jordan, Utah) for IVCF retrieval.

METHODS

Patients undergoing IVCF retrieval at a single institution between July 2015 and July 2020 were retrospectively identified. All adult patients (>18 years) undergoing filter retrieval with either Captus or Ensnare were included. Technical success and complications were compared by device. A complexity score was assigned to each case to adjust for selection bias. Logistic regression was used to model the association between device type and primary technical success.

RESULTS

99 IVCF retrievals met inclusion criteria, 59 with Captus and 40 with Ensnare. The majority of the cohort consisted of low complexity cases (n = 51, 86% Captus versus n = 31, 78% Ensnare; p = 0.28). Technical success for low and medium complexity retrievals was 88% and 62% with Captus and 96% and 33% with Ensnare. There was no significant association between device type and technical success, adjusting for case complexity (Captus OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.08-2.72, p = 0.49). There were no device-related complications.

CONCLUSION

No statistically significant difference in device technical success or complications between the Ensnare and Captus devices for uncomplicated IVCF retrieval.

PRECIS

The Captus Vascular Retrieval System is a new device for IVC filter retrieval which has similar technical success to the existing EnSnare.

Changing trends in inferior vena cava filter indication for venous thromboembolism over the last two decades: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to evaluate changes in the incidence, patients' profile and indications of inferior vena cava filters at a single center over the past two decades.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 187 consecutive patients with a venous thromboembolism requiring a filter at a tertiary hospital between 1999-2018. Within this period the availability of retrievable filters (since 2007) and the withdrawal of filter indication for recurrent venous thromboembolism from guidelines (since 2008) may have contributed to change practice patterns. Patients' profile, filter indication and survival were compared between decades (1999-2008 vs. 2009-2018).

RESULTS

The filter insertion rate doubled (60 vs. 127 cases) over 2009-2018. In this later period there was an unexpected rise (15 vs. 68 cases, P<0.001) of patients with isolated pulmonary embolism as baseline venous thromboembolism episode, without other relevant changes in patients' profile or survival. Regarding indications, there was an increase in filters for bleeding risk (23 vs. 45) and a reduction for venous thromboembolism recurrence (20 vs. 7), but also an unexpected increase of cases for bleeding (15 vs. 72). Among the 116 retrievable filters indicated for a temporary cause, 70 (60.3%) were finally not removed, being persistence of filter indication (n=33, 47.1%) the most common cause.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of filters inserted at our institution has raised over the last two decades. This increase was partly unexpected and perhaps related to the availability of retrievable filters. Unfortunately these devices remain frequently non-removed being persistence of the indication the most frequent cause.