Comparison of the Recovery and G2 Filter as Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters

Cantwell, Colin P.; Pennypacker, Jason; Singh, Harjit; Scorza, Leslie B.; Waybill, Peter N.; Lynch, Frank C.

doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2009.05.037

Cited by 29 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conventionally, IVC venography is performed prior to filter retrieval in a single-plane frontal view [6,12,13].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When planning an approach to filter removal, accurate detection of complications that would limit the use of standard techniques is necessary for reducing rates of unsuccessful and repeat removal attempts. While rotational venography has been proposed as a method to assist in detecting filter complications, single plane anterior-posterior (AP) venography is the imaging standard for assessing IVC filters prior to removal [6,[11][12][13]. This study was performed to analyze the utility of employing rotational venography for the identification of filter complications.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Value of Rotational Venography Versus Anterior–Posterior Venography in 100 Consecutive IVC Filter Retrievals

Kiefer

Pandey

Trerotola

et al. 2015

Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conventionally, IVC venography is performed prior to filter retrieval in a single-plane frontal view [6,12,13].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Value of Rotational Venography Versus Anterior–Posterior Venography in 100 Consecutive IVC Filter Retrievals

Kiefer

Pandey

Trerotola

et al. 2015

Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Filter tilting greater than 15 degrees during insertion were reported among the following conical filters: Bard Recovery (2.3-15%), 20,21 Bard G2/G2X/Eclipse (14-18%), 15,22,23 Cook (Bloomington, IN) Günther Tulip (11.5-24%), [24][25][26][27] 24F Greenfield (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) (7-12%), 28,29 12F Stainless Steel Greenfield (Boston Scientific) (9.9-55%), 30,31 and Titanium Greenfield (Boston Scientific) (8.3-41%). 30,32,33 In addition, wire prolapse up to 70% was reported for the Cook Bird's Nest filter.…”

Section: Insertional Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence-Based Evaluation of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Complications Based on Filter Type

Deso

Idakoji

Kuo

2016

Semin intervent Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many inferior vena cava (IVC) filter types, along with their specific risks and complications, are not recognized. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the various FDA-approved IVC filter types to determine device-specific risks, as a way to help identify patients who may benefit from ongoing follow-up versus prompt filter retrieval. An evidence-based electronic search (FDA Premarket Notification, MEDLINE, FDA MAUDE) was performed to identify all IVC filter types and device-specific complications from 1980 to 2014. Twenty-three IVC filter types (14 retrievable, 9 permanent) were identified. The devices were categorized as follows: conical (n?=?14), conical with umbrella (n?=?1), conical with cylindrical element (n?=?2), biconical with cylindrical element (n?=?2), helical (n?=?1), spiral (n?=?1), and complex (n?=?1). Purely conical filters were associated with the highest reported risks of penetration (90?100%). Filters with cylindrical or umbrella elements were associated with the highest reported risk of IVC thrombosis (30?50%). Conical Bard filters were associated with the highest reported risks of fracture (40%). The various FDA-approved IVC filter types were evaluated for device-specific complications based on best current evidence. This information can be used to guide and optimize clinical management in patients with indwelling IVC filters.

show abstract

“…Efficacy and safety of the Recovery Filter has been evaluated in seven studies, demonstrating the feasibility of removal of the device in a high percentage of patients (retrieval technical success varying from 85% to 100%) with a maximum implantation time of 475 days (range 5-475) [35][36][37][38][39][40][41].…”

Section: Recovery Filtermentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventional treatment of venous thromboembolism: A review

Imberti

Ageno

Manfredini

et al. 2012

Thrombosis Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is the third most common cardiovascular disease after coronary artery disease and cerebrovascular disease and is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality in the general population. Full dose anticoagulation is the standard therapy for VTE, both for the acute and the long-term phase. The latest guidelines of the American College of Chest Physicians recommend treatment with a full-dose of unfractioned heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight-heparin (LMWH), fondaparinux, vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or thrombolysis for most patients with objectively confirmed VTE. Catheter-guided thrombolysis and trombosuction are interventional approaches that should be used only in selected populations; interruption of the inferior vena cava (IVC) with a filter can be performed to prevent life-threatening PE in patients with VTE and contraindications to anticoagulant treatment, bleeding complications during antithrombotic treatment, or VTE recurrences despite optimal anticoagulation. In this review we summarize the currently available literature regarding interventional approaches for VTE treatment (vena cava filters, catheter-guided thrombolysis, thrombosuction) and we discuss current evidences on their efficacy and safety. Moreover, the appropriate indications for their use in daily clinical practice are reviewed.

show abstract

Comparison of the Recovery and G2 Filter as Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters

Cited by 29 publications

References 20 publications

The Value of Rotational Venography Versus Anterior–Posterior Venography in 100 Consecutive IVC Filter Retrievals

The Value of Rotational Venography Versus Anterior–Posterior Venography in 100 Consecutive IVC Filter Retrievals

Evidence-Based Evaluation of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Complications Based on Filter Type

Interventional treatment of venous thromboembolism: A review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About