Skip to main content

Comparison of Retrievability and Indwelling Complications of Celect and Denali Infrarenal Vena Cava Filters: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the Celect and Denali filters in terms of complex filter retrieval and indwelling complications after a 2-month indwelling time.

Materials and Methods

In this prospective, randomized trial, 153 subjects were assessed for eligibility between May 2016 and July 2018. A total of 136 participants were randomly assigned to receive either Celect (n = 68) or Denali (n = 68) filter placement in the infrarenal inferior vena cava. Tilt angles at placement and retrieval and rates of overall filter retrieval, indwelling complication, and complex retrieval were compared.

Results

Of 136 participants (mean age, 62 ± 12.8 years, 55 male), 24 (17.6%) were lost to follow-up. The mean indwelling time of filter was 60.4 ± 7 days and there was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics between the two groups. Filter retrieval was successful in all participants (112/112, 100%). Significantly higher rates of filter tilt > 15° (n = 8) and strut penetration (n = 14) were found with the Celect filter than with the Denali filter (1 significant tilt and 1 penetration) (P = 0.033 and 0.001, respectively). No filter fractures were observed and there was no significant difference in tip embedment, filter fracture, filter migration, or mean fluoroscopy times. There were 3 cases of complex retrieval (1 for Denali vs. 2 for Celect, P = 0.500), for which the loop-snare technique was used.

Conclusion

Denali filters demonstrated significantly lower rates of tilt angle > 15° and strut penetration. However, there was no significant difference in the complex filter retrieval rate between the Celect and Denali filters.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    Bick RL. Hereditary and acquired thrombophilia. Part I. Preface. Semin Thromb Hemost. 1999;25(3):251–3.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Athanasoulis CA, Kaufman JA, Halpern EF, Waltman AC, Geller SC, Fan CM. Inferior vena caval filters: review of a 26-year single-center clinical experience. Radiology. 2000;216(1):54–66.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Decousus H, Leizorovicz A, Parent F, et al. 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. 1998;338(7):409–15.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Ferris EJ, McCowan TC, Carver DK, McFarland DR. Percutaneous inferior vena caval filters: follow-up of seven designs in 320 patients. Radiology. 1993;188(3):851–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Jia Z, Fuller TA, McKinney JM, et al. Utility of retrievable inferior vena cava filters: a systematic literature review and analysis of the reasons for nonretrieval of filters with temporary indications. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2018;41(5):675–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ray CE Jr, Mitchell E, Zipser S, Kao EY, Brown CF, Moneta GL. Outcomes with retrievable inferior vena cava filters: a multicenter study. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006;17(10):1595–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Lee MJ, Valenti D, de Gregorio MA, Minocha J, Rimon U, Pellerin O. The CIRSE retrievable IVC filter registry: retrieval success rates in practice. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015;38(6):1502–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Uberoi R, Tapping CR, Chalmers N, Allgar V. British society of interventional radiology (BSIR) inferior vena cava (IVC) filter registry. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2013;36(6):1548–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Montgomery JP, Kaufman JA. A critical review of available retrievable inferior vena cava filters and future directions. Semin Interv Radiol. 2016;33(2):79–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kleedehn M, Moore K, Longo K, et al. An analysis of factors associated with increased fluoroscopy time or the need for complex techniques at IVC filter retrieval. Eur Radiol. 2019;29:1931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bos AS, Tullius T, Patel M, et al. Indwelling and retrieval complications of denali and celect infrarenal vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;27(7):1021–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ramaswamy RS, Jun E, van Beek D, et al. Denali, tulip, and option inferior vena cava filter retrieval: a single center experience. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2018;41(4):572–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Ryu RK, Desai K, Karp J, et al. A comparison of retrievability: celect versus option filter. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;26(6):865–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Zhou D, Spain J, Moon E, McLennan G, Sands MJ, Wang W. Retrospective review of 120 celect inferior vena cava filter retrievals: experience at a single institution. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012;23:1557–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Iliescu B, Haskal ZJ. Advanced techniques for removal of retrievable inferior vena cava filters. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012;35:741–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Caplin DM, Nikolic B, Kalva SP, Ganguli S, Saad WE, Zuckerman DA. Quality improvement guidelines for the performance of inferior vena cava filter placement for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22(11):1499–506.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Dinglasan LA, Oh JC, Schmitt JE, Trerotola SO, Shlansky-Goldberg RD, Stavropoulos SW. Complicated inferior vena cava filter retrievals: associated factors identified at preretrieval CT. Radiology. 2013;266(1):347–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Jia Z, Fuller TA, McKinney JM, et al. Utility of retrievable inferior vena cava filters: a systematic literature review and analysis of the reasons for nontrieval of filters with temporary indications. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2018;41:675–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Clements W, Moriarty HK, Paul E, Goh GS. Stratification of pre-procedure risk factors associated with difficult-to-remove inferior vena cava (IVC) filters: a 6-year retrospective analysis at a tertiary center. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2020;43(2):238–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Stavropoulos SW, Chen JX, Sing RF, Elmasri F, Silver MJ, Powell A, et al. Analysis of the final denali trial data: a prospective, multicenter study of the denali inferior vena cava filter. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;27:1531-1538.e1531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Wang W, Zhou D, Obuchowski N, Spain J, An T, Moon E. Fracture and migration of celect inferior vena cava filters: a retrospective review of 741 consecutive implantations. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;24:1719–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Jia Z, Wu A, Tam M, Spain J, McKinney JM, Wang W. Caval penetration by inferior vena cava filters: a systematic literature review of clinical significance and management. Circulation. 2015;132:944–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Dowell JD, Wagner D, Elliott E, Yildiz VO, Pan X. Factors associated with advanced inferior vena cava filter removals: a single-center retrospective study of 203 patients over 7 years. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2016;39(2):218–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Dabbagh O, Nagam N, Chitima-Matsiga R, Bearelly S, Bearelly D. Retrievable inferior vena cava filters are not getting retrieved: where is the gap? Thromb Res. 2010;126:493–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Kim HS, Young MJ, Narayan AK, Hong K, Liddell RP, Streiff MB. A comparison of clinical outcomes with retrievable and permanent inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008;19:393–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Sadri L, Rogers A, Sharma D, Tunis J, Sullivan T, Pineda DM. A survey of patients lost to follow-up after inferior vena cava filter placement. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2020;8(3):365–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Minocha J, Idakoji I, Riaz A, Karp J, Gupta R, Chrisman HB, et al. Improving inferior vena cava filter retrieval rates: impact of a dedicated inferior vena cava filter clinic. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21:1847–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Salei A, Raborn J, Manapragada PP, Stoneburner CG, Aal AKA, Gunn AJ. Effect of a dedicated inferior vena cava filter retrieval program on retrieval rates and number of patients lost to follow-up. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2020;26:40–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Lee BE, Van Allan RJ, Friedman ML, Lipshutz HG. Complications and retrieval characteristics of celect platinum inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2018;6:163–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Man-Deuk Kim.

Ethics declarations

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 later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent for Publication

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

Informed Consent

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

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Han, K., Kim, MD., Kim, G.M. et al. Comparison of Retrievability and Indwelling Complications of Celect and Denali Infrarenal Vena Cava Filters: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 44, 1536–1542 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-021-02928-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Pulmonary embolism
  • Deep venous thrombosis
  • Inferior vena cava
  • Filter
  • Retrieval