Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Long-Term Retrievability of IVC Filters: Should We Abandon Permanent Devices?

  • Review / State of the Art
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Thromboembolic disease produces a considerable disease burden, with death from pulmonary embolism in the UK alone estimated at 30,000–40,000 per year. Whilst it is unproven whether filters actually improve longevity, the morbidity and mortality associated with thromboembolic disease in the presence of contraindications to anticoagulation is high. Thus complications associated with filter insertion, and whilst they remain in situ, must be balanced against the alternatives. Permanent filters remain in situ for the remainder of the patient’s life and any complications from the filters are of significant concern. Filters that are not permanent are therefore attractive in these circumstances. Retrievable filters, to avoid or decrease long-term filter complications, appear to be a significant advance in the prevention of pulmonary embolism. In this review, we discuss the safety and effectiveness of both permanent and retrievable filters as well as the retrievability of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, to explore whether the use of permanent IVC filters can be abandoned in favor of retrievable filters. Currently four types of retrievable filters are available: the Recovery filter (Bard Peripheral Vascular, Tempe, AZ, USA), the Günther Tulip filter (Cook, Bloomington, IN, USA), the OptEase Filter (Cordis, Roden, The Netherlands), and the ALN filter (ALN Implants Chirurgicaux, Ghisonaccia, France). Efficacy and safety data for retrievable filters are as yet based on small series, with a total number of fewer than 1,000 insertions, and follow-up is mostly short term. Current long-term data are poor and insufficient to warrant the long-term implantation of these devices into humans. The case of fractured wire from a Recovery filter that migrated to the heart causing pericardial tamponade requiring open heart surgery is a reminder that any new endovascular device remaining in situ in the long term may produce unexpected problems. We should also bear in mind that the data on permanent filters are much more robust, with reports on over 9,500 cases with follow-up of up to 8 years. The original implantation time of 10–14 days has been extended to more than 100 days as the mean implantation time with some of the filter types. Follow-up (preferably prospective) is necessary for all retrievable filters, whether or not they are retrieved. Until these data become available we should restrict ourselves to the present indications of permanent and retrievable filters. If long-term follow-up data on larger numbers of cases confirm the initial data that retrievable filters are as safe and effective as permanent filters, the use of the retrievable filters is likely to expand.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sing RF, Rogers FB, Novitsky YW, Heniford BT (2005) Optional vena cava filters for patients with high thromboembolic risk: Questions to be answered. Surg Innov 12:195–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hann CL, Streiff MB (2005) The role of vena caval filters in the management of venous thromboembolism. Blood Rev 19:179–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ku GH, Billett HH (2005) Long lives, short indications. The case for removable inferior cava filters. Thromb Haemost 93:17–22

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Robertson F, Platts A (2004) IVC filters, venous thrombolysis and thrombectomy. In: Wyatt MG, Watkinson AF (ed) Endovascular intervention: Current controversies. TFM Publishing, pp 285–298

  5. Chiou AC (2005) IVC filter retrieval: Long-term data on today’s filter are needed. Endovascular Today 4:81–84

    Google Scholar 

  6. Imberti D, Bianchi M, Farina A, Siragusa S, Silingardi M, Ageno W (2005) Clinical experience with retrievable vena cava filters: Results of a prospective observational multicenter study. J Thromb Haemost 3:1370–1375

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Brountzos EN, Kaufman JA, Venbrux AC, Brown PR, Harry J, Kinst TF, Kleshinski S, Ravenscroft AC (2003) A new optional vena cava filter: Retrieval at 12 weeks in an animal model. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:763–772

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Decousus H, Leizorovicz A, Parent F, Page Y, Tardy B, Girard P, Laporte S, Faivre R, Charbonnier B, Barral FG, Huet Y, Simonneau G (1998) A clinical trial of vena caval filters in the prevention of PE in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis. Prevention du Risque d’Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave Study Group. N Engl J Med 338:409–415

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. PREPIC Study Group (2005) Eight-year follow-up of patients with permanent vena cava filters in the prevention of PE: The PREPIC (Prevention du Risque d’Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) randomized study. Circulation 112:416–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lorch H, Welger D, Wagner V, Hillner B, Strecker EP, Herrmann H, Voshage G, Zur C, Schwarzbach C, Schroder J, Gullotta U, Pleissner J, Huttner S, Siering U, Marcklin C, Chavan A, Glaser F, Apitzsch DE, Moubayed K, Leonhardi J, Schuchard UM, Weiss HD, Zwaan M (2000) Current practice of temporary vena cava filter insertion: A multicenter registry. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 11:83–88

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Poletti PA, Becker CD, Prina L, Ruijs P, Bounameaux H, Didier D, Schneider PA, Terrier F (1998) Long-term results of the Simon nitinol inferior vena cava filter. Eur Radiol 8:289–294

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Asch MR (2002) Initial experience in humans with a new retrievable inferior vena cava filter. Radiology 225:835–844

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Grande WJ, Trerotola SO, Reilly PM, Clark TW, Soulen MC, Patel A, Shlansky-Goldberg RD, Tuite CM, Solomon JA, Mondschein JI, Fitzpatrick MK, Stavropoulos SW (2005) Experience with the recovery filter as a retrievable inferior vena cava filter. J Vasc Interv Radiol 16:1189–1193

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bottomley J, Bérczi V, Cleveland TJ, Gaines PA, Thomas SM (2006) Initial clinical experience at a single tertiary centre with the “recovery” vena caval filter. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 29:497 (abstract)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kalva SP, Athanasoulis CA, Fan CM, Curvelo M, Geller SC, Greenfield AJ, Waltman AC, Wicky S (2006) “Recovery” vena cava filter: Experience in 96 patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 29:559–564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Saeed I, Garcia M, McNicholas K (2006) Right ventricular migration of a recovery IVC filter’s fractured wire with subsequent pericardial tamponade. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 29:685–686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hoppe H, Nutting CW, Smouse HR, Vesely TM, Pohl C, Bettmann MA, Kaufman JA (2006) Günther Tulip filter retrievability multicenter study including CT follow-up: Final report. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17:1017–1023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. De Gregorio MA, Gamboa P, Bonilla DL, Sanchez M, Higuera MT, Medrano J, Mainar A, Lostale F, Laborda A (2006) Retrieval of Günther Tulip optional vena cava filters 30 days after implantation: A prospective clinical study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17:1781–1789

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Looby S, Given MF, Geoghegan T, McErlean A, Lee MJ (2007) Günther tulip retrievable inferior vena caval filters: Indications, efficacy, retrieval, and complications. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 30:59–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Oliva VL, Szatmari F, Giroux MF, Flemming BK, Cohen SA, Soulez G (2006) The Jonas study: Evaluation of the retrievability of the Cordis OptEase inferior vena cava filter. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 16:1439–1445

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rosenthal D, Wellons ED, Lai KM, Bikk A, Henderson VJ (2006) Retrievable inferior vena cava filters: Initial clinical results. Ann Vasc Surg 20:157–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lam RC, Bush RL, Lin PH, Lumsden AB (2004) Early technical and clinical results with retrievable inferior vena caval filters. Vascular 12:233–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rajan DK, Sniderman KW, Rubin BB (2004) Retrieval of the Bard recovery filter from the superior vena cava. J Vasc Interv Radiol 15:1169–1171

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Millward SF, Oliva VL, Bell SD, Valenti DA, Rasuli P, Asch M, Hadziomerovic A, Kachura JR (2001) Günther Tulip Retrievable Vena Cava Filter: Results from the Registry of the Canadian Interventional Radiology Association. J Vasc Interv Radiol 12:1053–1058

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Terhaar OA, Lyon SM, Given MF, Foster AE, McGrath F, Lee MJ (2004) Extended interval for retrieval of Günther Tulip filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 15:1257–1262

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Binkert CA, Bansal A, Gates JD (2005) Inferior vena cava filter removal after 317-day implantation. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 16:395–398

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nadkarni S, Macdonald S, Cleveland TJ, Gaines PA (2002) Placement of a retrievable Günther Tulip filter in the superior vena cava for upper extremity deep venous thrombosis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 25:524–526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Smouse B (2005) IVC filter retrieval: The argument for long-term retrievability. Endovascular Today 4:77–80

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kumar BC, Chakraverty S, Zealley I (2006) Removal of a permanent IVC filter. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 29:124–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kaufman JA, Kinney TB, Streiff MB, et al. (2006) Guidelines for the use of retrievable and convertible vena cava filters: Report from the society of interventional radiology multidisciplinary consensus conference. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17:449–459

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

V.B. has been undertaking an Endovascular Fellowship funded by Cordis, Johnson and Johnson, UK.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sheffield Vascular Institute, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK

    V. Berczi, J. R. Bottomley, S. M. Thomas, S. Taneja, P. A. Gaines & T. J. Cleveland

  2. Department of Radiology and Oncotheraphy, Semmelweis University, Üllöi út 78/a, 1085, Budapest, Hungary

    V. Berczi

Authors
  1. V. Berczi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. R. Bottomley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. M. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Taneja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. A. Gaines
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. T. J. Cleveland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. Berczi.

Additional information

V. Berczi and J. Bottomley have contributed equally to this paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berczi, V., Bottomley, J.R., Thomas, S.M. et al. Long-Term Retrievability of IVC Filters: Should We Abandon Permanent Devices?. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 30, 820–827 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-007-9153-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-007-9153-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation