Abstract
Purpose
To compare the technical success of filter retrieval in Denali, Tulip, and Option inferior vena cava filters.
Materials and Methods
A retrospective analysis of Denali, Gunther Tulip, and Option IVC filters was conducted. Retrieval failure rates, fluoroscopy time, sedation time, use of advanced retrieval techniques, and filter-related complications that led to retrieval failure were recorded.
Results
There were 107 Denali, 43 Option, and 39 Tulip filters deployed and removed with average dwell times of 93.5, 86.0, and 131 days, respectively. Retrieval failure rates were 0.9% for Denali, 11.6% for Option, and 5.1% for Tulip filters (Denali vs. Option p = 0.018; Denali vs. Tulip p = 0.159; Tulip vs. Option p = 0.045). Median fluoroscopy time for filter retrieval was 3.2 min for the Denali filter, 6.75 min for the Option filter, and 4.95 min for the Tulip filter (Denali vs. Option p < 0.01; Denali vs. Tulip p < 0.01; Tulip vs. Option p = 0.67). Advanced retrieval techniques were used in 0.9% of Denali filters, 21.1% in Option filters, and 10.8% in Tulip filters (Denali vs. Option p < 0.01; Denali vs. Tulip p < 0.01; Tulip vs. Option p < 0.01).
Discussion
Filter retrieval failure rates were significantly higher for the Option filter when compared to both the Denali and Tulip filters. Retrieval of the Denali filter required significantly less amount of fluoroscopy time and use of advanced retrieval techniques when compared to both the Option and Tulip filters. The findings of this study indicate easier retrieval of the Denali and Tulip IVC filters when compared to the Option filter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kaufman JA, Kinney TB, Streiff MB, et al. Guidelines for the use of retrievable and convertible vena cava filters: report from the Society of Interventional Radiology multidisciplinary consensus conference. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2006;2:200–12.
Ni H, Win LL. Retrievable inferior vena cava filters for venous thromboembolism. ISRN Radiol. 2013;2013:959452.
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;22:1499–506.
Nicholson W, Nicholson WJ, Tolerico P, et al. Prevalence of fracture and fragment embolization of Bard retrievable vena cava filters and clinical implications including cardiac perforation and tamponade. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1827–31.
Administration. UFaD. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters: initial communication: risk of adverse events with long term use. Posted online 9 Aug 2010. https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20161022180008/http:/www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm221676.htm. Accessed 25 May 2017.
Montgomery JP, Kaufman JA. A critical review of available retrievable inferior vena cava filters and future directions. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2016;33:79–87.
Mission JF, Kerlan RK Jr, Tan JH, Fang MC. Rates and predictors of plans for inferior vena cava filter retrieval in hospitalized patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25:321–5.
Ryu RK, Desai K, Karp J, et al. A comparison of retrievability: celect versus option filter. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;26:865–9.
Stavropoulos SW, Sing RF, Elmasri F, et al. The DENALI Trial: an interim analysis of a prospective, multicenter study of the Denali retrievable inferior vena cava filter. J Vas Interv Radiol. 2014;25:1497–505 (505 e1).
Smouse HB, Rosenthal D, Thuong VH, et al. Long-term retrieval success rate profile for the Gunther Tulip vena cava filter. J Vas Interv Radiol. 2009;20:871–7 (quiz 8).
Iliescu B, Haskal ZJ. Advanced techniques for removal of retrievable inferior vena cava filters. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2012;35:741–50.
Olorunsola OG, Kohi MP, Fidelman N, et al. Caval penetration by retrievable inferior vena cava filters: a retrospective comparison of Option and Gunther Tulip filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;24:566–71.
McLoney ED, Krishnasamy VP, Castle JC, Yang X, Guy G. Complications of Celect, Gunther tulip, and Greenfield inferior vena cava filters on CT follow-up: a single-institution experience. J Vas Interv Radiol. 2013;24:1723–9.
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;266:347–54.
Johnson MS, Nemcek AA Jr, Benenati JF, et al. The safety and effectiveness of the retrievable option inferior vena cava filter: a United States prospective multicenter clinical study. J Vas Interv Radiol. 2010;21:1173–84.
Stavropoulos SW, Chen JX, Sing RF, 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;27:1531–8 (e1).
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;27:1021–6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights
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.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ramaswamy, R.S., Jun, E., van Beek, D. et al. Denali, Tulip, and Option Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval: A Single Center Experience. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 41, 572–577 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-017-1866-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-017-1866-z