Abstract
Purpose
To report and analyze the indications, procedural success, and complications of retrievable inferior vena cava filters (rIVCF) placement and to identify parameters that influence retrieval attempt and failure.
Methods
Between January 2005 and December 2010, a total of 200 patients (80 men, median age 67 years, range 11–95 years) received a rIVCF with the clinical possibility that it could be removed. All patients with rIVCF were prospectively entered into a database and followed until retrieval or a decision not to retrieve the filter was made. A retrospective analysis of this database was performed.
Results
Sixty-one percent of patients had an accepted indication for filter placement; 39% of patients had a relative indication. There was a tendency toward a higher retrieval rate in patients with relative indications (40% vs. 55%, P = 0.076). Filter placement was technically successful in all patients, with no procedure-related mortality. The retrieval rate was 53%. Patient age of >80 years (odds ratio [OR] 0.056, P > 0.0001) and presence of malignancy (OR 0.303, P = 0.003) was associated with a significantly reduced probability for attempted retrieval. Retrieval failure occurred in 7% (6 of 91) of all retrieval attempts. A time interval of > 90 days between implantation and attempted retrieval was associated with retrieval failure (OR 19.8, P = 0.009).
Conclusions
Patient age >80 years and a history of malignancy are predictors of a reduced probability for retrieval attempt. The rate of retrieval failure is low and seems to be associated with a time interval of >90 days between filter placement and retrieval.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
US Department of Health and Human Services. National Heart and Lung Institute. Diseases and conditions index. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/pe/pe_summary.html. Accessed 11 Oct 2011
Grassi CJ, Swan TL, Cardella JF et al (2003) Quality improvement guidelines for percutaneous permanent inferior vena cava filter placement for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14(9 pt 2):S271–S275
PREPIC Study Group (2005) Eight-year follow-up of patients with permanent vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism: the PREPIC (Prevention du Risque d’Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) randomized study. Circulation 112:416–422
Young T, Tang H, Hughes R (2010) Vena caval filters for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD006212
Keeling AN, Kinney TB, Lee MJ (2008) Optional inferior vena caval filters: where are we now? Eur Radiol 18:1556–1568
Yunus TE, Tariq N, Callahan RE et al (2008) Changes in inferior vena cava filter placement over the past decade at a large community-based academic health center. J Vasc Surg 47:157–165
Dabbagh O, Nagam N, Chitima-Matsiga R et al (2010) Retrievable inferior vena cava filters are not getting retrieved: where is the gap? Thromb Res 126:493–497
Jassar AS, Nicotera SP, Levin N et al (2011) Inferior vena cava filter migration to the right ventricle. J Card Surg 26:170–172
Nazzal M, Chan E, Abbas J et al (2010) Complications related to inferior vena cava filters: a single-center experience. Ann Vasc Surg 24:480–486
Kirilcuk NN, Herget EJ, Dicker RA et al (2005) Are temporary inferior vena cava filters really temporary? Am J Surg 190:858–863
US Department of Health and Human Services. US Food and Drug Administration (2010) Medical devices. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm221676.htm. Accessed 11 Oct 2011
Kuo WT, Cupp JS, Louie JD et al (2011) Complex retrieval of embedded IVC filters: alternative techniques and histologic tissue analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00270-011-0175-1
Irwin E, Byrnes M, Schultz S et al (2010) A systematic method for follow-up improves removal rates for retrievable inferior vena cava filters in a trauma patient population. J Trauma 69:866–869
Minocha J, Idakoji I, Riaz A et al (2010) Improving inferior vena cava filter retrieval rates: impact of a dedicated inferior vena cava filter clinic. J Vasc Interv Radiol 21:1847–1851
Tiwari A, Saw C, Li M et al (2010) Use of inferior vena cava filters in a tertiary referral centre in Australia. ANZ J Surg 80:364–367
Johnson MS, Nemcek AA Jr, Benenati JF et al (2010) The safety and effectiveness of the retrievable option inferior vena cava filter: a United States prospective multicenter clinical study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 21:1173–1184
Oh JC, Trerotola SO, Dagli M et al (2011) Removal of retrievable inferior vena cava filters with computed tomography findings indicating tenting or penetration of the inferior vena cava wall. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22:70–74
Helling TS, Kaswan S, Miller SL et al (2009) Practice patterns in the use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in a trauma population: a single-center experience. J Trauma 67:1293–1296
Lyon SM, Riojas GE, Uberoi R et al (2009) Short- and long-term retrievability of the Celect vena cava filter: results from a multi-institutional registry. J Vasc Interv Radiol 20:1441–1448
Acknowledgments
We thank Bette Dawson, RN, for her dedication to the filter patient follow-up; Cindy Stephens, RN, for her support in data collection; and University Hospital Basel for an unrestricted research grant to H. U.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Geisbüsch, P., Benenati, J.F., Peña, C.S. et al. Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Factors that Affect Retrieval Success. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 35, 1059–1065 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-011-0268-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-011-0268-x