Advertisement

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 160–162 | Cite as

Uncomplicated Removal of a Günther-Tulip Inferior Vena Cava Filter 15.5 Years After Placement

  • Courtney A. WoodfieldEmail author
  • Anthony M. Hall
  • Hans Y. Kim
Letter to the Editor
  • 70 Downloads

Dear Editor,

We are writing to share our unique recent experience with the complete removal of a Günther-Tulip inferior vena cava (IVC) filter 15.5 years after placement without the need for advanced techniques and without complications prior to, during, or after filter removal. An increasing number of the IVC filters now being placed are retrievable-type filters, removed once the risk of pulmonary embolus is no longer present. Ramaswamy et al. [1] recently reported on the technical retrieval success rate of three different IVC filters with average dwell times of 86.0–131 days: the Denali, Tulip, and Option filters. In this study, they found a significantly higher filter retrieval failure rate with the Option filter (11.6%) compared to the Denali (0.9%) and the Tulip (5.1%) filters. In addition, a higher rate of advanced retrieval techniques was reported for the Option filter (21.1%) compared to the Denali (0.9%) and the Tulip (10.8%) filters [1].

We also found a retrievable-type...

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its latest amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for Publication

Consent for publication was obtained for every individual person’s data included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Ramaswamy RS, Jun E, van Beek D, Mani N, Salter A, Kim SK, Akinwande O. Denali, Tulip, and option inferior vena cava filter retrieval: a single center experience. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2018;41:572–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Doshi MH, Narayanan G. Late endovascular removal of Günther-Tulip inferior vena cava filter and stent reconstruction of chronic post-thrombotic iliocaval obstruction after 4753 days of filter dwell time: a case report with review of literature. Radiol Case Rep. 2016;11:348–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kuo WT, Robertson SW, Odegaard JI, Hofmann LV. Complex retrieval of fractured, embedded, and penetrating inferior vena cava filters: a prospective study with histologic and electron microscopic analysis. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;24:622–30.e1.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Uberoi R, Rapping CR, Chalmers N, Allgar V. British society of interventional radiology (BSIR) inferior vena cava (IVC) filter registry. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2013;36:1548–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuo WT, Cupp JS, Loui JD, Kothary N, Hofmann LV, Sze DY, et al. Complex retrieval of embedded IVC filters: alternative techniques and histologic tissue. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2012;35:588–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Courtney A. Woodfield
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anthony M. Hall
    • 1
  • Hans Y. Kim
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyAbington Hospital – Jefferson HealthAbingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations