Advertisement

Surgery Today

, Volume 39, Issue 9, pp 764–769 | Cite as

Clinical outcome of perioperative nonpermanent vena cava filter placement in patients with deep venous thrombosis or blood stasis of the vein

  • Kenji Ishihara
  • Shinichi Hiromatsu
  • Yusuke Shintani
  • Kurando Kanaya
  • Keita Mikasa
  • Shigeaki Aoyagi
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the recent clinical experience with nonpermanent inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement preoperatively, especially with regard to patients who had deep venous thrombosis (DVT) due to compression by a tumor or an aneurysm.

Methods

Preoperative prophylactic IVC filter placement was performed between October 2002 and March 2008 in 48 of 83 patients who underwent IVC filter placement. IVC filter placement was performed preoperatively in 35 of the 48 patients due to DVT located distally in an iliac vein or due to IVC compression by a tumor or aneurysm. This study examined the early and mid-term outcomes resulting from nonpermanent IVC filter placement.

Results

The mean implantation period was 11.1 ± 9.3 days (range, 3–56 days). Three patients (8.6%) experienced minor complications during the IVC filter placement. A thrombus was captured in the filter in 4 patients (8.8%). One patient in whom the filter was left as a permanent filter died during the follow-up period. No patient experienced any pulmonary embolus during the follow-up period.

Conclusion

Nonpermanent IVC filter insertion is perioperatively useful in surgical procedures that eliminate the compression of the vein by an excision of either the tumor or aneurysm compressing the vein.

Key words

Venous thromboembolism Perioperative period Inferior vena cava filter 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ishida K, Masuda M. Review of acute pulmonary embolism in a general hospital. Surg Today 2007;37:740–744.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dovrish Z, Hadary R, Blickstein D, Shilo L, Ellis MH. Retrospective analysis of the use of inferior vena cava filters in routine hospital practice. Postgrad Med J 2006;82:150–153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Millward SF, Oliva VL, Bell SD, Valenti DA, Rasuli P, Asch M, et al. Guenther Tulip retrievable vena cava filter: results from the registry of the Canadian interventional radiology association. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2001;12:1053–1058.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Millward SF. Temporary and retrievable inferior vena cava filters: current status. Soc Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 1998;9:381–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuroiwa M, Seo N, Furuya H, Irita K, Sawa T, Ito M, et al. Incidence and characteristics of perioperative pulmonary thromboembolism in Japan in 2004. Masui 2006;55:1031–1038.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kobayashi T, Nakabayashi M, Ishikawa M, Adachi T, Kobashi G. Pulmonary thromboembolism in obstetrics and gynecology increased by 6.5-fold over the past decade in Japan. Circ J 2008;72:753–756.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Adib T, Belli A, McCall J, Ind TE, Bridges JE, Shepherd JH, et al. The use of inferior vena caval filters prior to major surgery in women with gynaecological cancer. Br J Obstet Gynecol 2008;115:902–907.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nishikawa H, Ideishi M, Nishimura T, Kawamura A, Kamochi H, Tahara H, et al. Deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary thromboembolism associated with a huge uterine myoma — a case report. Angiology 2000;51:161–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Falcone M, Serra P. Massive pulmonary embolism in a woman with leiomyomatous uterus causing pelvic deep venous thrombosis.: Ann Ital Med Int 2005;20:104–107.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferris EJ, McCowan TC, Carver DK, McFarland DR. Percutaneous inferior vena caval filters: follow-up of seven designs in 320 patients. Radiology 1993;188:851–856.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crochet DP, Stora O, Ferry D, Grossetete R, Leurent B, Brunel P, et al. Vena Tech-LGM filter: long-term results of a prospective study. Radiology 1993;188:857–860.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Decousus H, Leizorovicz A, Parent F, Page Y, Tardy B, Girard P. 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;338:409–415.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miyahara T, Miyata T, Shigematsu K, Deguchi J, Kimura H, Ishii S. Clinical outcome and complications of temporary inferior vena cava filter placement. J Vasc Surg 2006;44:620–624.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lorch H, Welger D, Wagner V. Current practice of temporary vena cava filter insertion: a multicenter registry. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2000;11:83–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin M, Soo TB, Horn LC. Successful retrieval of infected Guenther Tulip IVC filter. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2000;11:1341–1343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kirilcuk. NN, Herget EJ, Dicker RA, Spain DA, Hellinger JC, Brundage SI. Am J Surg 2005;190:858–863.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rectenwald JE. Vena cava filters: uses and abuses. Semin Vasc Surg 2005;18:166–175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Binkert CA. The role of optional filters. Endovasc Today 2006;50–56.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Millward SF. Guenther Tulip retrievable filter: why, when and how. J Am Coll Radiol 2001;52:188–192.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenji Ishihara
    • 1
  • Shinichi Hiromatsu
    • 1
  • Yusuke Shintani
    • 1
  • Kurando Kanaya
    • 1
  • Keita Mikasa
    • 1
  • Shigeaki Aoyagi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryKurume University School of MedicineKurume, FukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations