Reporting the impact of inferior vena cava perforation by filters

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (7) ◽  
pp. 471-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily A Wood ◽  
Rafael D Malgor ◽  
Antonios P Gasparis ◽  
Nicos Labropoulos

Background Perforation of the inferior vena cava by filters struts is a known complication. The goal of our review is to assess the impact of inferior vena cava perforation by filters based on an open, voluntary national database. Methods We reviewed 3311 adverse events of inferior vena cava filters reported in Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database from January 2000 to June 2011. Outcomes of interest were incidence of inferior vena cava perforation, type of filter, clinical presentation, and management of the perforation, including retrievability rates. Results Three hundred ninety-one (12%) cases of inferior vena cava perforation were reported. The annual distribution of inferior vena cava perforation was 35 cases (9%), varying from seven (2%) to 70 (18%). A three-fold increment in the number of adverse events related to inferior vena cava filters has been noted since 2004. Wall perforation as an incidental finding was the most common presentation ( N = 268, 69%). Surrounding organ involvement was found in 117 cases (30%), with the aorta being the most common in 43 cases (37%), followed by small bowel in 36 (31%). Filters were retrieved in 97 patients (83%) regardless of wall perforation. Twenty-five (26%) cases required an open procedure to remove the filter. Neither major bleeding requiring further intervention nor mortality was reported. Conclusions Inferior vena cava perforation by filters remains stable over the studied years despite increasing numbers of adverse events reported. The majority of filters involved in a perforation were retrievable. Filter retrieval, regardless of inferior vena cava wall perforation, is feasible and must be attempted whenever possible in order to avoid complications.

Author(s):  
David Rosenthal ◽  
Eric D. Wellons ◽  
Allison B. Burkett ◽  
Paul V. Kochupura ◽  
William Veale

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (17) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kush R. Desai ◽  
Nicholas Xiao ◽  
Riad Salem ◽  
Jennifer K. Karp ◽  
Robert K. Ryu ◽  
...  

Background Numerous reports have shown that inferior vena cava filters are associated with clinically significant adverse events. Complicating factors, such as caval incorporation, may lead to technical challenges at retrieval. The use of advanced techniques including the laser sheath have increased technical success rates; however, the data are limited on which filter types necessitate and benefit from its use. Methods and Results From October 2011 to September 2019, patients with inferior vena cava filter dwell times >6 months or with prior failed retrievals were considered for laser sheath–assisted retrieval. Standard and nonlaser advanced retrieval techniques were attempted first; if the filter could not be safely or successfully detached from the caval wall using these techniques, the laser sheath was used. Technical success, filter type, necessity for laser sheath application based on “open” versus “closed‐cell” filter design, dwell times, and adverse events were evaluated. A total of 441 patients (216 men; mean age, 54 years) were encountered. Mean dwell times for all filters was 56.6 months, 54.4 among closed‐cell filters and 58.5 among open‐cell filters ( P =0.63). Technical success of retrieval was 98%, with the laser sheath required in 143 cases (40%). Successful retrieval of closed‐cell filters required laser sheath assistance in 60% of cases as compared with 7% of open‐cell filters (odds ratio, 20.1; P <0.01). In closed‐cell inferior vena cava filters, dwell time was significantly associated with need for laser, requiring it in 64% of retrievals with dwell times >6 months ( P =0.01). One major adverse event occurred among laser sheath retrievals when a patient required a 2‐day inpatient admission for a femoral access site hemorrhage. Conclusions Closed‐cell filters may necessitate the use of the laser sheath for higher rates of successful and safe retrieval.


2019 ◽  
Vol 213 (4) ◽  
pp. 768-777 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald S. Winokur ◽  
Noy Bassik ◽  
David C. Madoff ◽  
David Trost

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document