CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 998–1005 | Cite as

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

  • Eric K. Hoffer
  • Rebecca J. Mueller
  • Marcus R. Luciano
  • Nicole N. Lee
  • Anne T. Michaels
  • John M. Gemery
Clinical Investigation



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


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.


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.


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.


Deep-vein thrombosis Inferior vena cava filter Pulmonary embolism Venous intervention 


Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 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–545SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 338:409–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 17:449–459PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 112:416–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 170:1456–1462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 22:1522–1530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 17:1595–1604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sag AA, Stavas JM, Burke CT et al (2008) Analysis of tilt of the Gunther Tulip filter. J Vasc Interv Radiol 19:669–676PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keller IS, Meier C, Pfiffner R et al (2007) Clinical comparison of two optional vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 18:505–511PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 17:1017–1023PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 52:452–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 30:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 20:10–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 12:1053–1058PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 44:591–596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wicky S, Doenz F, Meuwly JY et al (2003) Clinical experience with retrievable Gunther Tulip vena cava filters. J Endovasc Ther 10:994–1000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Terhaar OA, Lyon SM, Given MF et al (2004) Extended interval for retrieval of Gunther Tulip filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 15:1257–1262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ota S, Yamada N, Tsuji A et al (2008) The Gunther-Tulip retrievable IVC filter: clinical experience in 118 consecutive patients. Circ J 72:287–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 38:38–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 170:1827–1831PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    US Food and Drug Administration (2010) Safety alerts and notices, medical devices. Removing retrievable inferior vena cava filters: initial communication. Accessed 20 Jan 2012
  22. 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–S376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 10:1013–1019PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 35:299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Athanasoulis CA, Kaufman JA, Halpern EF et al (2000) Inferior vena caval filters: review of a 26-year single-center clinical experience. Radiology 216:54–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Greenfield LJ, Proctor MC (2000) The percutaneous greenfield filter: outcomes and practice patterns. J Vasc Surg 32:888–893PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 19:393–399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 23:188–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 23:199–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 147:766–774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 4:734–742PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 168:425–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 92:199–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 22:1514–1520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric K. Hoffer
    • 1
  • Rebecca J. Mueller
    • 1
  • Marcus R. Luciano
    • 1
  • Nicole N. Lee
    • 1
  • Anne T. Michaels
    • 1
  • John M. Gemery
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Section of Vascular and Interventional RadiologyDartmouth-Hitchcock Medical CenterLebanonUSA

Personalised recommendations