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

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.

Keywords

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

Notes

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  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. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm221676.htm. 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