Thromboembolic disease during pregnancy is an important cause of obstetric morbidity and mortality. Pregnant patients with venous thromboembolism are usually managed by conventional anticoagulation. However, this must be discontinued during vaginal or caesarian delivery to avoid haemorrhage and to reduce the risk of possible epidural haematoma. Retrievable inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) offer protection against pulmonary embolism during this high-risk period, when anticoagulation is discontinued, while avoiding potential long-term sequelae of a permanent IVCF. Here we report two patients who presented in the third trimester of pregnancy with floating ileofemoral deep vein thrombosis. Both patients were initially treated with standard anticoagulation; however, shortly before delivery both patients had a retrievable IVCF placed in a suprarenal position. In both patients, retrieval failed at 28 days after insertion because of filter tilt. The timing and mechanism of filter tilt remains uncertain. We believe that a number of factors could have been involved, including change in the anatomic configuration with lateral displacement of the IVCF as a result of the gravid uterus as well as forceful uterine contractions during labour, which modified the shape and diameter of the IVC. We showed that failure to retrieve the IVCF has had considerable implications for the two young patients regarding long-term anticoagulation and have highlighted the need for further clinical trials regarding the safe use of retrievable IVCFs during pregnancy.
Retrievable IVC filters DVT Pulmonary embolism
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Rodger MA, Carrier M, Keely E et al (2002) The management of thrombophilia during pregnancy: a Canadian survey. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 24:946–952PubMedGoogle Scholar
Anderson DR, Ginsberg JS, Burrows R et al (1991) Subcutaneous heparin therapy during pregnancy: a need for concern at the time of delivery. Thromb Haemost 65:248–250PubMedGoogle Scholar
Greenfield LJ, Proctor MC (1996) Current indications for caval interruption: should they be liberalized in view of improving technology? Semin Vasc Surg 9:50–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
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. N Eng J Med 338:409–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athanasoulis CA (1993) Complications of vena cava filters. Radiology 188:614–615PubMedGoogle Scholar
Hann CL, Streiff MB (2005) The role of vena caval filters in the management of venous thromboembolism. Blood Rev 19:179–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aburahma AF, Boland JP (1999) Management of deep vein thrombosis of the lower extremity in pregnancy: a challenging dilemma. Am Surg 65:164–167PubMedGoogle Scholar
Thomas LA, Summers RR, Cardwell MS (1997) Use of Greenfield filters in pregnant women at risk for pulmonary embolism. South Med J 90:215–217PubMedGoogle Scholar
Narayan H, Cullimore J, Krarup K et al (1992) Experience with the Cardial inferior vena cava filter as prophylaxis against pulmonary embolism in pregnant women with extensive deep venous thrombosis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 99:637–640PubMedGoogle Scholar
Matchett WJ, Jones MP, Mcfarland DR et al (1998) Suprarenal vena cava filter placement: follow-up of four filter types in 22 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 9:588–593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawamata K, Chiba Y, Tanaka R et al (2005) Experience of temporary inferior vena cava filters in the perinatal period to prevent pulmonary embolism in pregnant women with deep vein thrombosis. J Vasc Surg 41:652–656PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganguli S, Tham JC, Komlos F et al (2006) Fracture and migration of a suprarenal inferior vena cava filter in a pregnant patient. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17:1707–1711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar