An analysis of factors associated with increased fluoroscopy time or the need for complex techniques at IVC filter retrieval
- 76 Downloads
To evaluate factors associated with increased fluoroscopy time or the need for complex techniques at IVC filter retrieval.
This is a single-institution retrospective cohort study of 187 consecutive patients who underwent IVC filter retrieval. An analysis was performed on associations of patient factors with increased fluoroscopy time and/or the need for complex retrieval techniques. A complex retrieval was defined as one requiring more than standard sheath and snare technique.
Access vein during filter placement was not associated with filter tilt at placement or removal (p = 0.61 and 0.48). Neither the direction of the hook nor its relationship to the tilt was associated with the need for complex retrieval or increased retrieval fluoroscopy time (p = 0.25, 0.23, p = 0.18, 0.23). Tilt angle at placement correlated with hook apposition at time of removal (p = 0.01). Hook apposition was associated with complex retrieval and increased fluoroscopy time (p < 0.01). Larger tilt angle at placement was not associated with complex retrieval (p = 0.22), but a larger angle at removal was (p < 0.01). Longer dwell time correlated with the need for complex retrieval (p = 0.02). Filter type, sex, and age were not associated with complex retrievals (p = 0.58, p = 0.90, p = 0.99).
Contrary to previous hypotheses and studies, access vein for filter placement did not affect filter tilting, and direction of filter hook–tilt relationship did not affect retrieval fluoroscopy time or the need for complex retrieval techniques. Increased filter placement angle was associated with a larger angle at removal and hook–wall apposition, both of which were associated with complex retrievals.
• Filter hook orientation did not correlate with retrieval complexity.
• Filter insertion vein did not correlate with filter tilt.
• Filter tilt and hook apposition to the caval wall at the time of retrieval correlated with retrieval procedure complexity.
KeywordsVena cava filters Fluoroscopy Radiology, interventional
Current procedural terminology
Deep venous thrombosis
US Food and Drug Administration
Inferior vena cava
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Mark Kleedehn.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Statistics and biometry
Kaitlin Woo has kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.
Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.
Study subjects or cohorts overlap
Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported in abstract form in JVIR.
• Performed at one institution
- 2.Van Ha TG, Kang L, Lorenz J et al (2013) Difficult OptEase filter retrievals after prolonged indwelling times. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 36:1139–1143Google Scholar
- 4.(2014) Removing Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: FDA safety communication. Available via fda.gov. Accessed April 24, 2017
- 13.Al-Hakim R, Kee ST, Olinger K, Lee EW, Moriarty JM, McWilliams JP (2014) Inferior vena cava filter retrieval: effectiveness and complications of routine and advanced techniques. J Vasc Interv Radiol 25:933–939; quiz 940Google Scholar
- 17.Cohen B, Tang A, Batouli A, Nordman C (2017) How inferior vena cava filter placement approach and filter type predict tilt angle and retrieval. J Vasc Interv Radiol 28(2):S89Google Scholar
- 18.Lee MJ, Valenti D, de Gregorio MA, Minocha J, Rimon U, Pellerin O (2015) The CIRSE Retrievable IVC Filter Registry: Retrieval Success Rates in Practice. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 38:1502–1507Google Scholar
- 19.Geisbüsch P, Benenati JF, Peña CS et al (2012) Retrievable inferior vena cava filters: factors that affect retrieval success. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 35:1059–1065Google Scholar
- 20.Tsui B, An T, Moon E, King R, Wang W (2016) Retrospective Review of 516 Implantations of Option Inferior Vena Cava Filters at a Single Health Care System. J Vasc Interv Radiol 27:345–353Google Scholar
- 21.Gotra ADF, P. Doucet, C. Dey, C. Bessissow, A. Boucher, L. Boucher, L. Valenti, D. (2017) Positional Changes of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters at time of removal: a comparative study of various filter types and factors that impact retrieval success. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology 28Google Scholar
- 22.Bos AS, Tullius T, Patel M et al (2016) Indwelling and Retrieval Complications of Denali and Celect Infrarenal Vena Cava Filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 27:1021-1026Google Scholar