A better inferior vena cava filter retrieval rate: A retrospective study in a single-center institution

Purpose To determine practice patterns of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs), retrieval rates, and reasons why retrievable-IVCFs (R-IVCFs) are kept permanent. Methods A total of 399 patients who received IVCFs at Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from January 2017 to December 2017 were registered and retrospectively studied. Date of demographics, baseline medical history, dwell time, reasons why R-IVCFs were kept permanent, and R-IVCFs thrombus were collected. Results A total of 399 IVCFs were placed during the study period including 27 permanent IVCFs and 372 R-IVCFs. Among all patients who received R-IVCFs, the mean dwell time was 18.25 ± 16.60 days, follow-up rate was 96.24% (358/372), and 337 R-IVCFs were attempted to be removed. Except one, 336 R-IVCFs were retrieved successfully (336/372, 90.32%). Sixty-four R-IVCFs thrombi were found during retrieval including 53 small-size thrombi (< 1 cm × 1 cm) and 13 large-size thrombi (>1 cm × 1 cm). Fifty-three R-IVCFs with small-size thrombi were removed successfully with no additional treatments. Twelve large-size thrombi were retrieved successfully after catheter-directed thrombolysis. Conclusions With good follow-up, the retrieval rate could be improved to 90.32%. The main reasons why R-IVCFs were kept permanent were to avoid losing follow-up and overcome inappropriate selections of indications or IVCF types. And R-IVCFs with thrombus could be removed safely.

Download Full-text

PS130. Factors Impacting Follow-up Care after Placement of Temporary Inferior Vena Cava Filters

Journal of Vascular Surgery ◽

10.1016/j.jvs.2012.03.159 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 55 (6) ◽

pp. 60S

Author(s):

Elsie Gyang ◽

Mohamed Zayed ◽

E. John Harris ◽

Jason T. Lee ◽

Ronald L. Dalman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Inferior Vena Cava ◽

Inferior Vena ◽

Vena Cava ◽

Inferior Vena Cava Filters ◽

Vena Cava Filters ◽

Follow Up Care

Download Full-text

A Policy of Dedicated Follow-Up Improves the Rate of Removal of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Trauma Patients

Yearbook of Pulmonary Disease ◽

10.1016/j.ypdi.2011.02.023 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 2011 ◽

pp. 146-147

Author(s):

M. Ali Raza

Keyword(s):

Inferior Vena Cava ◽

Inferior Vena ◽

Vena Cava ◽

Trauma Patients ◽

Inferior Vena Cava Filters ◽

Vena Cava Filters

Download Full-text

Optimal Time of Extraction Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Venous Thromboembolic Treatment: Evidence Based Case Report

Journal of Indonesian Society for Vascular and Endovascular Surgery ◽

10.36864/jinasvs.2021.1.011 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2 (1) ◽

pp. 41-47

Author(s):

Akhmadu Muradi ◽

Rudi Hermansyah

Keyword(s):

Inferior Vena Cava ◽

Dwell Time ◽

Inferior Vena ◽

Vena Cava ◽

Optimal Time ◽

Standard Time ◽

Ivc Filters ◽

Vena Cava Filters ◽

Adjacent Structures ◽

Successful Retrieval

Background: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have been proven to be significantly advantageous and clinically efficacious in the prevention of deathly venous thromboembolism, but also carry long-term risks, such as device failure, filter fracture, migration, penetration into adjacent structures, etc. Retrievable filters offer the same degree of protection, and subsequently lower those risk by removing them after they aren’t needed. Unfortunately, increasing use of retrievable filters leads to one alarming trend: there’s massive number of filters that are left for an extended time. Whether the time between deployment and retrieval affects filter’s technical success of retrieval remains questionable. Here is a case of a 45-year old woman who had undergone retrievable IVC filter due to pulmonary embolism risk. The patient only came to clinician for routine follow- up once, one month after deployment. One year later, the patient felt abdominal pain and asked to remove the filter. After one failed attempt, the clinician decided to leave the filter in situ as permanent filter. Method: Literature searching was conducted in several databases (ScienceDirect, EbscoHost, and ClinicalKey) using specified keywords. Six articles that had been passed exclusion and inclusion criteria, were eventually appraised and extracted. Results: Of all six articles that are included in this study, there are no standard time of retrieval. Each study provides data regarding their attempted retrieval, successful retrieval, and dwell time. Only two articles (Uberoi et al and Glocker et al) analyze the relationship between time of retrieval and successful retrieval. Uberoi et al claims filter retrieval statistically more successful if the dwell time is less than 9 weeks, whereas Glocker et al states the procedure is considerably more successful within 3-4 months (117 days) after deployment. The reasons of retrieval failure in these studies are varied, including device angulation, filter incorporation with IVC wall, and penetration to IVC wall and adjacent structures, or significant thrombus inside the filter. Conclusion: There are no standard time of retrieval, but clinicians could follow FDA recommendation by removing the filter when it isn’t necessarily needed. However, a time span of 3-4 months between implantation and retrieval can be respectable choice to make sure the maximum chance at retrieval success.

Download Full-text

Prophylactic inferior vena cava filters in trauma patients at high risk: Follow-up examination and risk/benefit assessment

Journal of Vascular Surgery ◽

10.1016/s0741-5214(99)70075-3 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 30 (3) ◽

pp. 484-490 ◽

Cited By ~ 86

Author(s):

Eugene M. Langan ◽

Richard S. Miller ◽

William J. Casey ◽

Christopher G. Carsten ◽

Robin M. Graham ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Inferior Vena Cava ◽

Inferior Vena ◽

Vena Cava ◽

Benefit Assessment ◽

Trauma Patients ◽

Inferior Vena Cava Filters ◽

Vena Cava Filters ◽

Risk Benefit Assessment

Download Full-text

03:54 PM Abstract No. 195 Does prolonged dwell time predict failure? Results from a multicenter study of inferior vena cava filter retrieval success for inferior vena cava filters implanted for over 1 year

Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology ◽

10.1016/j.jvir.2018.12.250 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 30 (3) ◽

pp. S88

Author(s):

M. Errea ◽

M. Lessne ◽

S. Madassery ◽

N. Xiao ◽

R. Lewandowski ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Inferior Vena Cava ◽

Multicenter Study ◽

Dwell Time ◽

Inferior Vena Cava Filter ◽

Inferior Vena ◽

Vena Cava ◽

Vena Cava Filter ◽

Inferior Vena Cava Filters ◽

Filter Retrieval ◽

Vena Cava Filters

Download Full-text

Retrieval of Inferior Vena Cava Filters With Prolonged Dwell Time

JAMA Internal Medicine ◽

10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2561 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 175 (9) ◽

pp. 1572 ◽

Cited By ~ 16

Author(s):

Kush R. Desai ◽

Robert J. Lewandowski ◽

Riad Salem ◽

Samdeep K. Mouli ◽

Jennifer K. Karp ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Inferior Vena Cava ◽

Dwell Time ◽

Inferior Vena ◽

Vena Cava ◽

Inferior Vena Cava Filters ◽

Vena Cava Filters

Download Full-text

Safety and Efficacy of Rivaroxaban for Inferior Vena Cava Thrombosis after Successful Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis

Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis ◽

10.1055/s-0041-1733924 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Jun Du ◽

Menglin Nie ◽

Zhitong Yan ◽

Jian Fu ◽

Jianming Sun ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Inferior Vena Cava ◽

Inferior Vena ◽

Vena Cava ◽

Target Lesion ◽

Primary Patency ◽

Safety And Efficacy ◽

Ivc Thrombosis ◽

Catheter Directed Thrombolysis ◽

Cumulative Prevalence

AbstractRivaroxaban use for inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombosis after successful catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) is rarely reported. This study aimed at investigating the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban for IVC thrombosis after CDT. The clinical data on 38 consecutive patients with IVC thrombosis (68% male; mean age, 51.5 ± 16.5), who received rivaroxaban after CDT between July 2017 and January 2020, were retrospectively analyzed in this study. Safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban (bleedings and recurrent venous thromboembolism), cumulative prevalence of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), primary patency, clinically driven target lesion revascularization rate, and other adverse events including all-cause mortality and vascular events (systemic embolism, acute coronary syndrome, ischemic stroke, and transient ischemic attack) were retrospectively analyzed. Of the 38 patients who received rivaroxaban for IVC thrombosis after CDT, 27 (71%) had an anticoagulant duration of 6 months and 11 patients (29%) of more than 6 months. Four patients (10%) suffered recurrent thrombosis. No patient suffered major bleeding, while clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in two (5%) patients. The cumulative prevalence of PTS was 18% (7/38) during the 12 months follow-up period. Primary patency at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months was 97, 92, 90, and 90%, respectively. According to follow-up data, the clinically driven target lesion revascularization of this study was 10%. Cardiovascular events and mortality did not occur in any patient during the study period. Rivaroxaban for IVC thrombosis after successful CDT can be safe and effective.

Download Full-text

A Policy of Dedicated Follow-Up Improves the Rate of Removal of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Trauma Patients

The American Surgeon ◽

10.1177/000313481107700131 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 77 (1) ◽

pp. 103-108 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Terence O'Keeffe ◽

Joby J. Thekkumel ◽

Susan Friese ◽

Shahid Shafi ◽

Shellie C. Josephs

Keyword(s):

Inferior Vena Cava ◽

Nurse Practitioners ◽

Inferior Vena ◽

Vena Cava ◽

Trauma Patients ◽

Inferior Vena Cava Filters ◽

Patient Status ◽

Vena Cava Filters ◽

Trauma Teams

Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters (IVCF) for prophylaxis against pulmonary embolus have been associated with low rates of removal. Strategies for improving the rates of retrieval have not been described. We hypothesized that a policy of dedicated follow-up would achieve a higher rate of filter removal. Trauma and Nontrauma patients who had a retrievable IVCF placed during 2006 were identified. A protocol existed for trauma patients with chart stickers, arm bracelets, and dedicated follow-up by nurse practitioners from three trauma teams. No protocol existed for nontrauma patients. Statistical analysis was performed using χ2 analysis or analysis of variance. One hundred sixty-seven retrievable IVCFs were placed over 12 months; 91 in trauma patients and 76 in nontrauma patients. Trauma patients were more likely to have their IVCF removed than nontrauma patients, 55 per cent versus 19 per cent, P < 0.001. There were differences between the three trauma teams, with removal rates of 44 per cent, 42 per cent, and 86 per cent respectively ( P < 0.05). On multivariate analysis young age and trauma patient status were independent predictors of filter removal. A policy of dedicated follow-up of patients with IVCFs can achieve significantly higher rates of filter removal than have been previously reported. Similar policies should be adopted by all centers placing retrievable IVCFs to maximize retrieval rates.

Download Full-text