The CIRSE Retrievable IVC Filter Registry: Retrieval Success Rates in Practice
- 758 Downloads
CIRSE established a registry of retrievable filter use with the primary aim of determining the success of IVC Filter retrieval and associated complications. Secondary endpoints included filter indications, imaging strategies before retrieval, filter dwell times, and anticoagulation status. A web-based electronic registry was hosted between 01/12/2010 and 30/06/2012. Data entry occurred at the date of IVC filter retrieval and included items such as filter type, indication for filter insertion, access route, dwell time, retrieval success, complications, reasons for failed retrieval, and anticoagulation status. 671 filter retrievals were entered (male:female 333:295, mean age 55, median 57). Retrieval data were not entered in 43/671 leaving 628 patients for analysis. The 4 commonest retrievable filters used were the Celect in 182 patients, the OPTEASE in 161, ALN in 120, and Gunther Tulip in 98. Filters were inserted for absolute indications 40 %, relative indications in 31 %, and prophylactic in 24 %, with 5 % missing. Mean filter dwell time was 90 days. Filters were successfully retrieved in 576/628 patients (92 %). The mean dwell time for successful retrievals was 85 days versus 145 days for unsuccessful retrievals (p = 0.001). Major complications occurred in 2 patients (0.03 %). In summary, the CIRSE retrievable filter registry demonstrates a retrieval rate of 92 % across a range of filter types, with a low major complication rate, reflecting current practice. There is an increase in trend of retrievable filter use for relative and prophylactic indications.
KeywordsVenous intervention Inferior vena cava filter (IVC) placement Vena cava Pulmonary embolism (PE)
Dendrite clinical systems (London, UK) for database support. CIRSE research and analytics dept for statistical support.
Conflict of interest
Lee MJ, Valenti D, de Gregorio, Minocha J, Rimon U, and Pellerin O all declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.Decousus H, Leizorovicz A, Parent F, Page Y, Tardy B, Girard P, Laporte S, Faivre R, Charbonnier B, Barral FG, Huet Y, Simonneau G, For The PREPIC Study Group. A clinical trial of vena caval filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:409–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.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 10 Dec 2013.
- 16.LaBelle S. Markets for clot management devices. Toronto, Canada: ©Milllennium Research Group, A decision Resources Group Company; 2011.Google Scholar
- 17.European Union: European Commission; 2010. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-27072010-AP/EN/3-27072010-AP-EN.PDF Accessed 4 Nov 2012.
- 18.Census Data: US Census Bureau (2011). http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/. Accessed 31 Oct 2012.
- 19.Hameed F, Chan A, Gleierszewski K, Heilala S, Huynh N, Thevaratnam T.: European Markets for clot management devices. Toronto: ©2011 Milllennium Research Group, A decision Resources Group Company; 2011. 2012Google Scholar
- 20.Hameed F. European Markets for Peripheral Vascular Devices 2011. Toronto, Canada: ©2010 Milllennium Research Group, A decision Resources Group Company; 2010.Google Scholar
- 21.Helt JA, Cohen AT, Anderson FA Jr. (2005) on behalf of the VTE Impact Assessment Group. Estimated annual number of incident and recurrent, non-fatal and fatal venous thromboembolism (VTE) events in the US. ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts;106(11): Abstract 910.Google Scholar
- 23.Sarostek S, Crowther M, Sloan JM. Indications, complications and management of inferior vena cava filters. The experience in 952 patients at an academic hospital with a level I trauma center. JAMA. 2013;173(7):513–7.Google Scholar