Perforation of inferior vena cava during filter placement

VASA ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piecuch ◽  
Wiewiora ◽  
Nowowiejska-Wiewiora ◽  
Szkodzinski ◽  
Polonski
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Venous Thrombosis ◽  
Deep Venous Thrombosis ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Retroperitoneal Hematoma ◽  
Ivc Filter ◽  
Filter Placement ◽  
Therapeutic Method

The placement of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is a therapeutic method for selected patients with deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. However, insertion and placement of the filter may be associated with certain complications. For instance, retroperitoneal hematoma resulting from perforation of the wall by the filter is such a very rare but serious complication. We report the case of a 64-year-old woman with perforation of the IVC wall and consecutive hematoma caused by the filter who was treated surgically.

scholarly journals Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement during Pregnancy: An Adjuvant Option When Medical Therapy Fails

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Sara Valadares ◽  
Fátima Serrano ◽  
Rita Torres ◽  
Augusta Borges
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Venous Thrombosis ◽  
Deep Venous Thrombosis ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava Filter ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Vena Cava Filter ◽  
Filter Placement ◽  
Thrombotic Risk

The authors present a case of a 27-year-old multiparous woman, with multiple thrombophilia, whose pregnancy was complicated with deep venous thrombosis requiring placement of a vena cava filter. At 15th week of gestation, following an acute deep venous thrombosis of the right inferior limb, anticoagulant therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was instituted without improvement in her clinical status. Subsequently, at 18 weeks of pregnancy, LMWH was switched to warfarin. At 30th week of gestation, the maintenance of high thrombotic risk was the premise for placement of an inferior vena cava filter for prophylaxis of pulmonary embolism during childbirth and postpartum. There were no complications and a vaginal delivery was accomplished at 37 weeks of gestation. Venal placement of inferior vena cava filters is an attractive option as prophylaxis for pulmonary embolism during pregnancy.

Early Technical and Clinical Results with Retrievable Inferior Vena Caval Filters

Vascular ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 233-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell C. Lam ◽  
Ruth L. Bush ◽  
Peter H. Lin ◽  
Alan B. Lumsden
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Venous Thrombosis ◽  
Deep Venous Thrombosis ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Hospital Death ◽  
Ivc Filter ◽  
Filter Placement ◽  
Ivc Filters ◽  
Retrievable Ivc Filters

Deep venous thrombosis with or without subsequent pulmonary embolism is a common preventable cause of hospital death. Although anticoagulation is the accepted standard therapy for thromboembolic disease, in situations in which anticoagulation is contraindicated, interruption of the inferior vena cava (IVC) by means of percutaneous placement of a filter has become a widely used alternative. We report our initial experience with two retrievable IVC filters. Between July 2002 and April 2003, 13 patients ( mean age 54 ± 7 years; range 29–75 years) underwent percutaneous placement of either the Gunther Tulip ( n = 5; Cook Inc., Bloomington, IN) or OptEase ( n = 8; Cordis, Miami Lakes, FL) IVC filter. Five patients had filters placed prophylactically before major surgery. The remaining eight patients had had a contraindication to anticoagulation, and three had experienced a hemorrhagic complication as a result of anticoagulation following either a recently documented deep venous thrombosis ( n = 3) or pulmonary embolism ( n = 5). Filters were successfully placed in all 13 patients, with a duration of implantation ranging from 2 to 15 days. Retrieval was attempted in 12 patients (in 1 patient, permanent filtration was secondarily requested) and was achieved in 10 (84.6%) patients. In 2 patients, retrieval failure was due to device angulation within the vena cava precluding safe retrieval. In both instances, the device used was the Gunther Tulip filter. No patient developed symptomatic pulmonary embolism or insertion-site thrombosis following either filter deployment or removal. Trapped thrombus in the filters was seen in all patients. Retrieval required a mean of 6.8 minutes (range 5–10.2 minutes) of fluoroscopy time. Neither filter migration nor caval injury was observed. Temporary IVC filters are effective and are associated with a high retrieval success rate. Further study is warranted to determine the maximal duration of implantation and whether retrievable IVC filters should expand the indications for IVC filter placement.

Supplemental Use of Inferior Vena Cava Filters: A Review of An Institutional Experience.

Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 1279-1279
Author(s):  
Parminder Singh ◽  
Robert G. Lerner ◽  
Tarun Chugh ◽  
Hoang Lai ◽  
Wilbert S Aronov
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Thromboembolic Disease ◽  
Ivc Filter ◽  
Filter Placement ◽  
Ivc Thrombosis ◽  
Venous Thromboembolic ◽  
Post Filter

Abstract Introduction: Increasing use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in recent years as a preventative measure against pulmonary embolism (PE) has raised concern for usage outside of accepted guidelines. Based on the American College of Chest Physicians 2004 guidelines for the initial treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and PE, and the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma 2002 guidelines for prophylaxis of PE, placement of an IVC filter is indicated in patients who either have, or are at high risk for thromboembolism, but have a contraindication for anticoagulation, a complication of anticoagulant treatment, or recurrent thromboembolism despite adequate anticoagulation. The purpose of our study is to identify patients who meet the guidelines for IVC filter placement and to compare clinical outcomes with those who did not meet the guidelines. Methods: Charts of 558 patients who received IVC filter placement were reviewed from Jan 1, 2004 to Dec 31, 2007. Patients were divided into two groups called within-guidelines or supplemental. The within-guidelines group included patients that met the criteria described above. The supplemental indication group included patients who did not have a contraindication or failure of anticoagulation. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes between the two groups were compared and analyzed. Results: The within-guidelines group had 362 patients and the supplemental group had 196 patients. While there were more males in the within-guidelines group, age, race, length of stay, and in-hospital mortality were comparable between the two groups. Clinical follow-up in patients with a supplemental indication showed 1 (0.5%) case of post-filter PE, 2 (1%) cases of IVC thrombosis, 7 (3.6%) cases of DVT. Patients who were in the within-guidelines indication group had 4 (1.1%) cases of post-filter PE, 13 (3.6%) cases of IVC thrombosis, and 34 (9.4%) cases of DVT. All patients who developed post-filter PE had a prior DVT at the time of filter placement, and the risk of developing post-filter IVC thrombosis and PE is higher in patients with prior thromboembolic disease. Conversely, patients who did not have a VTE event before filter placement were at a significantly lower risk of developing IVC thrombosis and PE. Conclusion: Anticoagulation should be initiated at the earliest possible time in patients treated with an IVC filter to prevent subsequent venous thromboembolic disease. Our data does not support the use of IVC filter in patients who can tolerate anticoagulation and have no prior venous thromboembolic event due to the low risk of developing pulmonary embolism

scholarly journals Prevention of fatal pulmonary embolism in a patient with stomach cancer

2013 ◽  
Vol 94 (6) ◽  
pp. 903-905
Author(s):  
I A Kamalov ◽  
I R Aglullin ◽  
M G Tukhbatullin ◽  
I R Safin ◽  
A Yu Rodionova
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Venous Thrombosis ◽  
Deep Venous Thrombosis ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava Filter ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Set Up

A clinical case of a 71-year old patient with stomach cancer and concomitant lower extremity deep venous thrombosis diagnosed before the surgical treatment is presented. The patient was administered anticoagulants, and despite the treatment, a diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis with high risk for thromboembolism was set up. Considering high risk for pulmonary embolism, an inferior vena cava filter was implanted in infrarenal part of inferior vena cava at the first stage. On the second day after the cancer surgery (subtotal stomach resection with lymphadenectomy), clot detachment and its dislocation from the left common femoral vein to the area where the cava filter was implanted with further fixation were diagnosed. Accurate diagnosis of lower extremity deep venous thrombosis with high risk for thromboembolism set up by ultrasonography and timely inferior vena cava filter implantation saved the patient with cancer from developing pulmonary embolism.

Placement of Simultaneous Inferior Vena Cava Filter During Emergent Open Pulmonary Thromboembolectomy

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Lajos ◽  
◽  
Ronald Bangiyev ◽  
Scott Safir ◽  
Alan Weinberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Cardiopulmonary Bypass ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Ivc Filter ◽  
Filter Placement ◽  
Risk Of Death

Background: This study retrospectively reviewed results of simultaneous (SIM) inferior vena cava (IVC) filter and separate (SEP) IVC filter placement with open pulmonary thromboembolectomy (PTE) in pulmonary embolism and its clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: From November 2006 to May 2014, 23 patients (14 females and 9 males; median age 58 years; range, 21–88 years) underwent emergent PTE for submassive (12) or massive (11) pulmonary embolism (PE). All had a preoperative computed tomography (CT) scan and echocardiography consistent with right ventricular (RV) strain. Mean cardiopulmonary bypass times and temperatures; chest tube outputs; length of stay; perioperative complications; and survival were compared between groups. Results: There were 13 patients in the SIM group and 10 in the SEP group. PE consisted of 14 acute (60.9%) and nine acute on chronic (39.1%). There were seven deaths (30.4%). Median follow up was 44 days (range, 2–2204 days). Follow up was 81% complete in surviving patients. Actuarial survival at one and three years was 83% for the SIM group and 43% for the SEP group, respectively. There were no differences in cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times and temperatures, chest tube outputs, or length of stay between groups. Using multivariable logistic regression, we found SIM was associated with increased survival (p=0.09). Further analysis showed patients >55 years in the SEP group were at significantly higher risk of death (hazard ratio [HR]=7.1:1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.55, 32.5, p=0.011). Conclusion: IVC filter placement can be performed simultaneously and safely at PTE. Age >55 years and PTE with IVC filter placed separately were at significantly higher risk of death. A larger cohort is needed to evaluate efficacy of simultaneous IVC filter placement and PTE.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document