Advertisement

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 35, Issue 5, pp 1059–1065 | Cite as

Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Factors that Affect Retrieval Success

  • Philipp Geisbüsch
  • James F. Benenati
  • Constantino S. Peña
  • Joseph Couvillon
  • Alex Powell
  • Ripal Gandhi
  • Shaun Samuels
  • Heiko Uthoff
Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Purpose

To report and analyze the indications, procedural success, and complications of retrievable inferior vena cava filters (rIVCF) placement and to identify parameters that influence retrieval attempt and failure.

Methods

Between January 2005 and December 2010, a total of 200 patients (80 men, median age 67 years, range 11–95 years) received a rIVCF with the clinical possibility that it could be removed. All patients with rIVCF were prospectively entered into a database and followed until retrieval or a decision not to retrieve the filter was made. A retrospective analysis of this database was performed.

Results

Sixty-one percent of patients had an accepted indication for filter placement; 39% of patients had a relative indication. There was a tendency toward a higher retrieval rate in patients with relative indications (40% vs. 55%, P = 0.076). Filter placement was technically successful in all patients, with no procedure-related mortality. The retrieval rate was 53%. Patient age of >80 years (odds ratio [OR] 0.056, P > 0.0001) and presence of malignancy (OR 0.303, P = 0.003) was associated with a significantly reduced probability for attempted retrieval. Retrieval failure occurred in 7% (6 of 91) of all retrieval attempts. A time interval of > 90 days between implantation and attempted retrieval was associated with retrieval failure (OR 19.8, P = 0.009).

Conclusions

Patient age >80 years and a history of malignancy are predictors of a reduced probability for retrieval attempt. The rate of retrieval failure is low and seems to be associated with a time interval of >90 days between filter placement and retrieval.

Keywords

Inferior vena cava IVC Retrievable filter Retrieval failure Vena cava filter 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Bette Dawson, RN, for her dedication to the filter patient follow-up; Cindy Stephens, RN, for her support in data collection; and University Hospital Basel for an unrestricted research grant to H. U.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    US Department of Health and Human Services. National Heart and Lung Institute. Diseases and conditions index. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/pe/pe_summary.html. Accessed 11 Oct 2011
  2. 2.
    Grassi CJ, Swan TL, Cardella JF et al (2003) Quality improvement guidelines for percutaneous permanent inferior vena cava filter placement for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14(9 pt 2):S271–S275PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 112:416–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Young T, Tang H, Hughes R (2010) Vena caval filters for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD006212Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keeling AN, Kinney TB, Lee MJ (2008) Optional inferior vena caval filters: where are we now? Eur Radiol 18:1556–1568PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yunus TE, Tariq N, Callahan RE et al (2008) Changes in inferior vena cava filter placement over the past decade at a large community-based academic health center. J Vasc Surg 47:157–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dabbagh O, Nagam N, Chitima-Matsiga R et al (2010) Retrievable inferior vena cava filters are not getting retrieved: where is the gap? Thromb Res 126:493–497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jassar AS, Nicotera SP, Levin N et al (2011) Inferior vena cava filter migration to the right ventricle. J Card Surg 26:170–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nazzal M, Chan E, Abbas J et al (2010) Complications related to inferior vena cava filters: a single-center experience. Ann Vasc Surg 24:480–486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kirilcuk NN, Herget EJ, Dicker RA et al (2005) Are temporary inferior vena cava filters really temporary? Am J Surg 190:858–863PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    US Department of Health and Human Services. US Food and Drug Administration (2010) Medical devices. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm221676.htm. Accessed 11 Oct 2011
  12. 12.
    Kuo WT, Cupp JS, Louie JD et al (2011) Complex retrieval of embedded IVC filters: alternative techniques and histologic tissue analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. doi: 10.1007/s00270-011-0175-1
  13. 13.
    Irwin E, Byrnes M, Schultz S et al (2010) A systematic method for follow-up improves removal rates for retrievable inferior vena cava filters in a trauma patient population. J Trauma 69:866–869PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Minocha J, Idakoji I, Riaz A et al (2010) Improving inferior vena cava filter retrieval rates: impact of a dedicated inferior vena cava filter clinic. J Vasc Interv Radiol 21:1847–1851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tiwari A, Saw C, Li M et al (2010) Use of inferior vena cava filters in a tertiary referral centre in Australia. ANZ J Surg 80:364–367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnson MS, Nemcek AA Jr, Benenati JF et al (2010) The safety and effectiveness of the retrievable option inferior vena cava filter: a United States prospective multicenter clinical study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 21:1173–1184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oh JC, Trerotola SO, Dagli M et al (2011) Removal of retrievable inferior vena cava filters with computed tomography findings indicating tenting or penetration of the inferior vena cava wall. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22:70–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Helling TS, Kaswan S, Miller SL et al (2009) Practice patterns in the use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in a trauma population: a single-center experience. J Trauma 67:1293–1296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lyon SM, Riojas GE, Uberoi R et al (2009) Short- and long-term retrievability of the Celect vena cava filter: results from a multi-institutional registry. J Vasc Interv Radiol 20:1441–1448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philipp Geisbüsch
    • 1
    • 2
  • James F. Benenati
    • 1
  • Constantino S. Peña
    • 1
  • Joseph Couvillon
    • 1
  • Alex Powell
    • 1
  • Ripal Gandhi
    • 1
  • Shaun Samuels
    • 1
  • Heiko Uthoff
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Vascular and Interventional RadiologyBaptist Cardiac and Vascular InstituteMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Department of Vascular and Endovascular SurgeryRuprecht-Karls UniversityHeidelbergGermany
  3. 3.Department of AngiologyUniversity Hospital BaselBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations