Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Safety and Efficacy of the Gunther Tulip Retrievable Vena Cava Filter: Midterm Outcomes

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate of the medium-term integrity, efficacy, and complication rate associated with the Gunther Tulip vena cava filter.

Methods

A retrospective study was performed of 369 consecutive patients who had infrarenal Gunther Tulip inferior vena cava filters placed over a 5-year period. The mean patient age was 61.8 years, and 59 % were men. Venous thromboembolic disease and a contraindication to or complication of anticoagulation were the indications for filter placement in 86 % of patients; 14 % were placed for prophylaxis in patients with a mean of 2.3 risk factors. Follow-up was obtained by review of medical and radiologic records.

Results

Mean clinical follow-up was 780 days. New or recurrent pulmonary embolus occurred in 12 patients (3.3 %). New or recurrent deep-vein thrombosis occurred in 53 patients (14.4 %). There were no symptomatic fractures, migrations, or caval perforations. Imaging follow-up in 287 patients (77.8 %) at a mean of 731 days revealed a single (0.3 %) asymptomatic fracture, migration greater than 2 cm in 36 patients (12.5 %), and no case of embolization. Of 122 patients with CT scans, asymptomatic perforations were identified in 53 patients (43.4 %) at a mean 757 days.

Conclusion

The Gunther Tulip filter was safe and effective at 2-year follow-up. Complication rates were similar to those reported for permanent inferior vena cava filters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kearon C, Kahn SR, Agnelli G et al (2008) Antithrombotic therapy for venous thromboembolic disease: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (8th edition). Chest 133:454S–545S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Decousus H, Leizorovicz A, Parent F et al (1998) A clinical trial of vena caval filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis. Prevention du Risque d’Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave Study Group. N Engl J Med 338:409–415

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kaufman JA, Kinney TB, Streiff MB et al (2006) Guidelines for the use of retrievable and convertible vena cava filters: report from the Society of Interventional Radiology multidisciplinary consensus conference. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17:449–459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. PREPIC Study Group (2005) Eight-year follow-up of patients with permanent vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism: the PREPIC (Prevention du Risque d’Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) randomized study. Circulation 112:416–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Spencer FA, Bates SM, Goldberg RJ et al (2010) A population-based study of inferior vena cava filters in patients with acute venous thromboembolism. Arch Intern Med 170:1456–1462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Angel LF, Tapson V, Galgon RE et al (2011) Systematic review of the use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22:1522–1530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ray CE Jr, Mitchell E, Zipser S et al (2006) Outcomes with retrievable inferior vena cava filters: a multicenter study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17:1595–1604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sag AA, Stavas JM, Burke CT et al (2008) Analysis of tilt of the Gunther Tulip filter. J Vasc Interv Radiol 19:669–676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Keller IS, Meier C, Pfiffner R et al (2007) Clinical comparison of two optional vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 18:505–511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hoppe H, Nutting CW, Smouse HR et al (2006) Gunther Tulip filter retrievability multicenter study including CT follow-up: final report. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17:1017–1023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Given MF, McDonald BC, Brookfield P et al (2008) Retrievable Gunther Tulip inferior vena cava filter: experience in 317 patients. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 52:452–457

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Looby S, Given MF, Geoghegan T et al (2007) Gunther Tulip retrievable inferior vena caval filters: indications, efficacy, retrieval, and complications. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 30:59–65

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Neuerburg JM, Gunther RW, Vorwerk D et al (1997) Results of a multicenter study of the retrievable Tulip vena cava filter: early clinical experience. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 20:10–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Millward SF, Oliva VL, Bell SD et al (2001) Gunther Tulip retrievable vena cava filter: results from the registry of the Canadian Interventional Radiology Association. J Vasc Interv Radiol 12:1053–1058

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. de Gregorio MA, Laborda A, Higuera MT et al (2008) Removal of retrievable inferior vena cava filters 90 days after implantation in an ovine model: is there a time limit for removal? Arch Bronconeumol 44:591–596

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wicky S, Doenz F, Meuwly JY et al (2003) Clinical experience with retrievable Gunther Tulip vena cava filters. J Endovasc Ther 10:994–1000

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Terhaar OA, Lyon SM, Given MF et al (2004) Extended interval for retrieval of Gunther Tulip filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 15:1257–1262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ota S, Yamada N, Tsuji A et al (2008) The Gunther-Tulip retrievable IVC filter: clinical experience in 118 consecutive patients. Circ J 72:287–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Seshadri T, Tran H, Lau KK et al (2008) Ins and outs of inferior vena cava filters in patients with venous thromboembolism: the experience at Monash Medical Centre and review of the published reports. Intern Med J 38:38–43

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Nicholson W, Nicholson WJ, Tolerico P et al (2010) Prevalence of fracture and fragment embolization of Bard retrievable vena cava filters and clinical implications including cardiac perforation and tamponade. Arch Intern Med 170:1827–1831

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. US Food and Drug Administration (2010) Safety alerts and notices, medical devices. Removing retrievable inferior vena cava filters: initial communication. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm221676.htm. Accessed 20 Jan 2012

  22. Millward SF, Grassi CJ, Kinney TB et al (2009) Reporting standards for inferior vena caval filter placement and patient follow-up: supplement for temporary and retrievable/optional filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 20:S374–S376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Greenfield LJ, Rutherford RB (1999) Recommended reporting standards for vena caval filter placement and patient follow-up. Vena Caval Filter Consensus Conference. J Vasc Interv Radiol 10:1013–1019

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Durack JC, Westphalen AC, Kekulawela S et al (2012) Perforation of the IVC: rule rather than exception after longer indwelling times for the Gunther Tulip and Celect retrievable filters. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 35:299–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Athanasoulis CA, Kaufman JA, Halpern EF et al (2000) Inferior vena caval filters: review of a 26-year single-center clinical experience. Radiology 216:54–66

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Greenfield LJ, Proctor MC (2000) The percutaneous greenfield filter: outcomes and practice patterns. J Vasc Surg 32:888–893

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim HS, Young MJ, Narayan AK et al (2008) A comparison of clinical outcomes with retrievable and permanent inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 19:393–399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Vijay K, Hughes JA, Burdette AS et al (2012) Fractured Bard Recovery, G2, and G2 express inferior vena cava filters: incidence, clinical consequences, and outcomes of removal attempts. J Vasc Interv Radiol 23:188–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tam MD, Spain J, Lieber M et al (2012) Fracture and distant migration of the Bard Recovery filter: a retrospective review of 363 implantations for potentially life-threatening complications. J Vasc Interv Radiol 23:199–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Douketis JD, Gu CS, Schulman S et al (2007) The risk for fatal pulmonary embolism after discontinuing anticoagulant therapy for venous thromboembolism. Ann Intern Med 147:766–774

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Schulman S, Lindmarker P, Holmstrom M et al (2006) Post-thrombotic syndrome, recurrence, and death 10 years after the first episode of venous thromboembolism treated with warfarin for 6 weeks or 6 months. J Thromb Haemost 4:734–742

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Spencer FA, Gore JM, Lessard D et al (2008) Patient outcomes after deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: the worcester venous thromboembolism study. Arch Intern Med 168:425–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Prandoni P, Noventa F, Ghirarduzzi A et al (2007) The risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism after discontinuing anticoagulation in patients with acute proximal deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. A prospective cohort study in 1,626 patients. Haematologica 92:199–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Teo TK, Angle JF, Shipp JI et al (2011) Incidence and management of inferior vena cava filter thrombus detected at time of filter retrieval. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22:1514–1520

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Section of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH, 03756, USA

    Eric K. Hoffer, Rebecca J. Mueller, Marcus R. Luciano, Nicole N. Lee, Anne T. Michaels & John M. Gemery

Authors
  1. Eric K. Hoffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca J. Mueller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcus R. Luciano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicole N. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anne T. Michaels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John M. Gemery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric K. Hoffer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hoffer, E.K., Mueller, R.J., Luciano, M.R. et al. Safety and Efficacy of the Gunther Tulip Retrievable Vena Cava Filter: Midterm Outcomes. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 36, 998–1005 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-012-0517-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-012-0517-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation