scholarly journals Chronic Inferior Vena Cava Filter Thrombosis: Endovascular Treatment and One-Year Follow-Up with Intravascular Ultrasonography

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-143
Author(s):  
Andrés Mesa ◽  
Eliana Milazzo ◽  
Oscar Rivera ◽  
Tabata Hernández ◽  
Gilberto Umanzor
Keyword(s):  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Neointimal Hyperplasia ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Ivc Filter ◽  
Intravascular Ultrasonography ◽  
Filter Placement ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
History Of ◽  
One Year

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter thrombosis can be fatal when it is not detected and treated. Its management can be challenging, because little evidence supports specific treatments. We present the case of a 72-year-old man with a history of deep vein thrombosis in whom IVC filter thrombosis developed 7 years after filter placement. Recanalization with oral anticoagulation had failed. Using intravascular ultrasonography, we performed pharmacomechanical thrombolysis, deploying 2 stents simultaneously through the IVC filter and then 2 more into the iliac veins, with excellent results. One year later, the patient's veins and IVC filter were patent, his symptoms were greatly improved, and only nonobstructive neointimal hyperplasia was seen. This case highlights the usefulness of balloon venoplasty and double-barrel stent placement in restoring blood flow through an occluded IVC, and the value of intravascular ultrasonography during and after such procedures.

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.

Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic-Assisted Retrieval of Wall-Penetrating Inferior Vena Cava Filter After Endovascular Techniques Failed: An Initial Clinical Outcome

2021 ◽  
pp. 153857442110225
Author(s):  
Haidong Wang ◽  
Zhenhua Liu ◽  
Xiaofei Zhu ◽  
Jianlong Liu ◽  
Libo Man
Keyword(s):  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Ivc Filter ◽  
Endovascular Techniques ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Ivc Filters ◽  
Laparoscopic Assisted ◽  
Deep Vein

Background: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are commonly used in China to prevent pulmonary embolisms in patients with deep vein thrombosis. However, IVC filter removal is complicated when the filter has penetrated the IVC wall and endovascular techniques usually fail. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of retroperitoneal laparoscopic-assisted retrieval of wall-penetrating IVC filters after endovascular techniques have failed. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated a series of 8 patients who underwent retroperitoneal laparoscopic-assisted retrieval of a wall-penetrating IVC filter between December 2017 and November 2019. All patients had experienced at least 1 failure with endovascular retrieval before the study. The filters were slanted and the proximal retrieval hooks penetrated the posterior lateral IVC wall in all patients on computed tomography. Demographic information, operation parameters, and complications were recorded and analyzed. All patients were followed up for at least 12 months. Results: The procedure was successful in all patients. The median surgery time was 53.6 ± 12.7 min and the average blood loss was 45.0 ± 13.5 ml. No serious complication occurred during the patients’ hospitalization, which was an average of 6.4 days. The median follow-up time was 15.1 months, and no patient had deep vein thrombosis recurrence. Conclusions: Retroperitoneal laparoscopic-assisted retrieval is a feasible and effective technique, particularly when proximal retrieval hooks penetrate the posterior lateral wall of the IVC after endovascular techniques have failed. To some extent, the development of this technique at our institution has increased the success rate of filter removal and improved patient satisfaction.

scholarly journals Retrospective analysis of outcomes following inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement in a managed care population

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damian Everhart ◽  
Jamieson Vaccaro ◽  
Karen Worley ◽  
Teresa L. Rogstad ◽  
Mitchel Seleznick
Keyword(s):  
Managed Care ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Ivc Filter ◽  
Filter Placement

scholarly journals Hemopericardium and Cardiac Tamponade Secondary to Migrated Inferior Vena Cava Filter

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeet J. Mehta ◽  
Benjamin DeMarco ◽  
John P. Vavalle ◽  
Khola S. Tahir ◽  
Joseph S. Rossi
Keyword(s):  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Cardiac Tamponade ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava Filter ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Vena Cava Filter ◽  
Filter Placement ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Right

A 73-year-old female presented with cardiogenic shock secondary to hemopericardium and cardiac tamponade. Imaging revealed two fractured legs of an inferior vena cava filter, with one leg within the anterior myocardium of the right ventricle and another penetrating the inferior septum through the middle cardiac vein. Hemopericardium and cardiac tamponade were treated with pericardiocentesis. A multidisciplinary meeting resulted in deferring further action against the embedded fractured legs of the filter with consideration of the patient’s age and comorbidities. This case report should alert clinicians to think about hemopericardium as a cause of cardiac tamponade and cardiogenic shock in a patient with a history of an inferior vena cava filter placement.

Duplication of the Inferior Vena Cava in a Patient Presenting for IVC Filter Placement

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danny Cheng ◽  
Steven M. Zangan
Keyword(s):  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Protein C ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Factor V Leiden ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Factor V ◽  
Ivc Filter ◽  
Protein C Deficiency ◽  
Filter Placement

Given the complex embryogenesis of the inferior vena cava (IVC), anatomic variations are commonly encountered. Duplication of the IVC occurs in up to 2.8% of the population. Though asymptomatic, a duplicated IVC has important clinical implications when attempting caval filtration. We present the case of a 45- year-old male with factor V leiden and protein C deficiency, who required cessation of warfarin anticoagulation in preparation for cervical laminectomy. The patient had a duplicated IVC and required placement of a caval filter in each IVC.

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

Role of Anticoagulation in Patients with Inferior Vena Cava Filter but with No Risk Factor or History of DVT/PE

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 4317-4317
Author(s):  
Mustapha A. Khalife ◽  
Vrushali S. Dabak ◽  
Marwa Hammoud ◽  
Karim Arnaout
Keyword(s):  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Ivc Filter ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
History Of ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Deep Vein ◽  
Group 1

Abstract Abstract 4317 Introduction: Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filters have been available for almost 40 years but their clinical utility and safety have not been completely evaluated in patients with no previous history of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). The role of anticoagulation in patients with IVC filter with no history of DVT/PE is questionable. In this study, we try to determine if there is a role or benefit from anticoagulation in patients with an IVC filter placed but without any other risk factor for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). Methods: we retrospectively reviewed the charts of 562 patients who had an IVC filter placed between 2003 and 2005. 442 patients were excluded because they had a history of DVT/PE, or because of a hypercoagulable state (genetic predisposition, prolonged hospitalization/immobilization, surgery, or malignancy). Of the 120 remaining patients included in this study, 6 had their IVC filter removed. And therefore we only analyzed the charts of 114 patients who had a permanent IVC filter placed for prophylactic reasons. Group 1 consisted of 17 patients who received different forms of anticoagulation (subcutaneous heparin, low molecular weight heparin or coumadin). Group 2 consisted of the remaining 97 patients who did not receive any form of anticoagulation. Results: 2 out of 17 patients in group 1 had a DVT and 14 out of 97 patients in group 2 had a DVT. The incidence of DVT was 11.8% in group 1 versus 14.4% in group 2 (p-value 0.770). The median onset of DVT/PE after IVC filter placement was 31 days. The median time of follow up was 77.33 months. Conclusion: Patients who had a permanent prophylactic IVC filter placed but with no history or risk factors for DVT/PE appear to be at an elevated risk for new DVT/PEs. In these patients, the role of anticoagulation is questionable. With a median 6 year follow up, anticoagulation seemed to non significantly lower the risk of DVT/PE. Larger randomized prospective trials are needed to examine the efficacy and duration of anticoagulation in patients with a prophylactic IVC filter placed. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document