Outcomes with retrievable inferior vena cava filters: A multicenter study

Charles E. Ray, Erica Mitchell, Stan Zipser, Edward Y. Kao, Charles F. Brown, Gregory (Greg) Moneta

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    141 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    PURPOSE: To retrospectively review the outcomes after placement and retrieval of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters at two academic medical centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent retrievable filter placement between May 2001 and December 2005 were included. Hospital records at both institutions were reviewed, and relevant data were collected concerning the placement and retrieval of all removable filters. RESULTS: A total of 197 patients underwent placement of a retrievable IVC filter. Of those, 143 patients (72.5%) had Günther Tulip filters (GTFs) placed, and 54 patients (27.5%) had Recovery filters placed. A total of 94 patients underwent attempted filter retrieval, accounting for just less than half of all retrievable filters placed during the study period (47.7%). Retrievals were successful in 80 patients (85.1%). Half the retrieval failures (n = 7) were the result of thrombus within the filter, and technical difficulties (eg, filter embedded in IVC wall, tilted filter) were the cause of retrieval failure in the other half. There was no significant difference in retrieval failure rates between the GTF and Recovery filter (16.4% vs 9.5%, respectively). GTFs were removed after a median implantation time of 11 days (range, 1-139 d), whereas Recovery filters were removed after a median implantation time of 28 days (range, 6-117 d). CONCLUSIONS: Placement and retrieval of nonpermanent IVC filters can be performed safely with a high technical success rate. In patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism and contraindication to anticoagulation, retrievable filters may be used aggressively to prevent the potentially devastating outcome of pulmonary embolism.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)1595-1604
    Number of pages10
    JournalJournal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
    Volume17
    Issue number10
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Oct 2006

    Fingerprint

    Vena Cava Filters
    Multicenter Studies
    Tulipa
    Hospital Records
    Venous Thromboembolism
    Inferior Vena Cava
    Pulmonary Embolism
    Thrombosis

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
    • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

    Cite this

    Outcomes with retrievable inferior vena cava filters : A multicenter study. / Ray, Charles E.; Mitchell, Erica; Zipser, Stan; Kao, Edward Y.; Brown, Charles F.; Moneta, Gregory (Greg).

    In: Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Vol. 17, No. 10, 10.2006, p. 1595-1604.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Ray, Charles E. ; Mitchell, Erica ; Zipser, Stan ; Kao, Edward Y. ; Brown, Charles F. ; Moneta, Gregory (Greg). / Outcomes with retrievable inferior vena cava filters : A multicenter study. In: Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. 2006 ; Vol. 17, No. 10. pp. 1595-1604.
    @article{7482367e7f024c08bf572a513142e9f5,
    title = "Outcomes with retrievable inferior vena cava filters: A multicenter study",
    abstract = "PURPOSE: To retrospectively review the outcomes after placement and retrieval of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters at two academic medical centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent retrievable filter placement between May 2001 and December 2005 were included. Hospital records at both institutions were reviewed, and relevant data were collected concerning the placement and retrieval of all removable filters. RESULTS: A total of 197 patients underwent placement of a retrievable IVC filter. Of those, 143 patients (72.5{\%}) had G{\"u}nther Tulip filters (GTFs) placed, and 54 patients (27.5{\%}) had Recovery filters placed. A total of 94 patients underwent attempted filter retrieval, accounting for just less than half of all retrievable filters placed during the study period (47.7{\%}). Retrievals were successful in 80 patients (85.1{\%}). Half the retrieval failures (n = 7) were the result of thrombus within the filter, and technical difficulties (eg, filter embedded in IVC wall, tilted filter) were the cause of retrieval failure in the other half. There was no significant difference in retrieval failure rates between the GTF and Recovery filter (16.4{\%} vs 9.5{\%}, respectively). GTFs were removed after a median implantation time of 11 days (range, 1-139 d), whereas Recovery filters were removed after a median implantation time of 28 days (range, 6-117 d). CONCLUSIONS: Placement and retrieval of nonpermanent IVC filters can be performed safely with a high technical success rate. In patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism and contraindication to anticoagulation, retrievable filters may be used aggressively to prevent the potentially devastating outcome of pulmonary embolism.",
    author = "Ray, {Charles E.} and Erica Mitchell and Stan Zipser and Kao, {Edward Y.} and Brown, {Charles F.} and Moneta, {Gregory (Greg)}",
    year = "2006",
    month = "10",
    doi = "10.1097/01.RVI.0000239102.02956.65",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "17",
    pages = "1595--1604",
    journal = "Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology",
    issn = "1051-0443",
    publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
    number = "10",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Outcomes with retrievable inferior vena cava filters

    T2 - A multicenter study

    AU - Ray, Charles E.

    AU - Mitchell, Erica

    AU - Zipser, Stan

    AU - Kao, Edward Y.

    AU - Brown, Charles F.

    AU - Moneta, Gregory (Greg)

    PY - 2006/10

    Y1 - 2006/10

    N2 - PURPOSE: To retrospectively review the outcomes after placement and retrieval of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters at two academic medical centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent retrievable filter placement between May 2001 and December 2005 were included. Hospital records at both institutions were reviewed, and relevant data were collected concerning the placement and retrieval of all removable filters. RESULTS: A total of 197 patients underwent placement of a retrievable IVC filter. Of those, 143 patients (72.5%) had Günther Tulip filters (GTFs) placed, and 54 patients (27.5%) had Recovery filters placed. A total of 94 patients underwent attempted filter retrieval, accounting for just less than half of all retrievable filters placed during the study period (47.7%). Retrievals were successful in 80 patients (85.1%). Half the retrieval failures (n = 7) were the result of thrombus within the filter, and technical difficulties (eg, filter embedded in IVC wall, tilted filter) were the cause of retrieval failure in the other half. There was no significant difference in retrieval failure rates between the GTF and Recovery filter (16.4% vs 9.5%, respectively). GTFs were removed after a median implantation time of 11 days (range, 1-139 d), whereas Recovery filters were removed after a median implantation time of 28 days (range, 6-117 d). CONCLUSIONS: Placement and retrieval of nonpermanent IVC filters can be performed safely with a high technical success rate. In patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism and contraindication to anticoagulation, retrievable filters may be used aggressively to prevent the potentially devastating outcome of pulmonary embolism.

    AB - PURPOSE: To retrospectively review the outcomes after placement and retrieval of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters at two academic medical centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent retrievable filter placement between May 2001 and December 2005 were included. Hospital records at both institutions were reviewed, and relevant data were collected concerning the placement and retrieval of all removable filters. RESULTS: A total of 197 patients underwent placement of a retrievable IVC filter. Of those, 143 patients (72.5%) had Günther Tulip filters (GTFs) placed, and 54 patients (27.5%) had Recovery filters placed. A total of 94 patients underwent attempted filter retrieval, accounting for just less than half of all retrievable filters placed during the study period (47.7%). Retrievals were successful in 80 patients (85.1%). Half the retrieval failures (n = 7) were the result of thrombus within the filter, and technical difficulties (eg, filter embedded in IVC wall, tilted filter) were the cause of retrieval failure in the other half. There was no significant difference in retrieval failure rates between the GTF and Recovery filter (16.4% vs 9.5%, respectively). GTFs were removed after a median implantation time of 11 days (range, 1-139 d), whereas Recovery filters were removed after a median implantation time of 28 days (range, 6-117 d). CONCLUSIONS: Placement and retrieval of nonpermanent IVC filters can be performed safely with a high technical success rate. In patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism and contraindication to anticoagulation, retrievable filters may be used aggressively to prevent the potentially devastating outcome of pulmonary embolism.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33750083034&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33750083034&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1097/01.RVI.0000239102.02956.65

    DO - 10.1097/01.RVI.0000239102.02956.65

    M3 - Article

    C2 - 17057000

    AN - SCOPUS:33750083034

    VL - 17

    SP - 1595

    EP - 1604

    JO - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

    JF - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

    SN - 1051-0443

    IS - 10

    ER -