Experience with the Recovery Filter as a Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter

Grande, William J.; Trerotola, Scott O.; Reilly, Patrick; Clark, Timothy W.I.; Soulen, Michael C.; Patel, Aalpen A.; Shlansky-Goldberg, Richard D.; Tuite, Catherine M.; Solomon, Jeffrey A.; Mondschein, Jeffrey I.; FitzPatrick, Mary Kate; Stavropoulos, S. William

doi:10.1097/01.rvi.0000171689.52536.fd

Cited by 117 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…3) Previous reports suggest that permanent and retrievable filters are similar in terms of safety and efficacy. 7) There are no reports examining the difference between the perforation rates of retrievable and permanent IVC filters. In our case, the patient received a retrievable ALN filter, which has been reported to be a relatively safe device with a low rate of major complications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Penetration of an Inferior Vena Cava Filter into the Aorta

Haga

Hosaka

Miyahara

et al. 2014

Annals of Vascular Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transvenous placement of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters is commonly performed in selected patients with deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. However, filter placement is sometimes associated with serious complications. A common complication is asymptomatic perforation of the IVC and penetration of adjacent organs by the filter. Here, we report a case of an 83-year-old man whose prophylactic IVC filter penetrated the aorta. The patient was closely followed without surgical intervention for more than a year, and no additional complications were observed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Penetration of an Inferior Vena Cava Filter into the Aorta

Haga

Hosaka

Miyahara

et al. 2014

Annals of Vascular Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Placement and retrieval is generally simpler than with other types of filters (3,12). However, the indwelling time for most retrievable filters is relatively short (most recommendations are to remove them within 12 days); thus, the explantation rate is low and many of them become permanent (11). The Tempofilter II is usually left in place for up to six weeks, with a longest reported indwelling time of 80 days (12).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If a thrombus is trapped by the filter, the filter can be maintained at the original position and removed after thrombus resolution (5). However, because the recommended usage time of this type of filter is relatively short (usually 12 days), the extraction rate is low and many are left in place permanently (11).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Tempofilter II implantation in patients with lower extremity fractures and proximal deep vein thrombosis

Jia

Liu²,

Tian³

et al. 2014

Diagn Interv Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ORIGINAL ARTICLE PURPOSE We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of Tempofilter II (B. Braun, Melsungen, Germany) implantation to prevent pulmonary embolism in patients with lower-extremity fractures and proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT). MATERIALS AND METHODSThe records of patients with lower limb fractures and proximal DVT who were implanted with Tempofilter II devices from May 2004 to August 2009 were reviewed. Data collected included success rate, occurrence of pulmonary embolism, retrieval rate, and complications. RESULTS A total of 176 eligible patients, including 129 males (73.3%) and 47 females (26.7%) with a median age of 42.0 years (interquartile range [IQR], 34.0-52.0 years) were included in the study. Filters were successfully implanted in 174 patients (98.9%). One patient experienced a pulmonary embolism after implantation and died. Filters were removed without complications in all other patients. Median filter implantation time was 27 days (IQR, 25.0-29.0 days). Visible organized thrombi were present on the surface of 144 (82.8%) of filters after removal, and the diameter of most thrombi (n=124) ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 cm. Filters migrated <2 cm in 104 patients (59.8%) and ≥2 cm in five patients (2.9%). In these five cases, three filters migrated into the right atrium and two migrated to the orifice of the renal veins. CONCLUSIONTempofilter II is safe and may be useful in cases of lower extremity fracture with proximal DVT for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. The filter is easily placed and retrieved, and associated with minimal complications.

show abstract

“…Çıkarmak için genelde filtrelerde dizayn edilmiş kancalar vasküler kement vasıtası ile yakalanarak vasküler kılıf yardımıyla kapatılır ve kılıf içine alınır. Filtre çıkarmada genel başarı oranı yüksektir (%71-%100) [16,17]. Filtre çıkarmada temel güç-lükler, filtre içi pıhtı varlığı ve kement ile yakalamada güçlüğe neden olan eğilmedir [18].…”

Section: Teknikunclassified

Vena Kava Filtre Yerlestirme

Karaman¹,

Özen²

2015

Trd Sem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experience with the Recovery Filter as a Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter

Cited by 117 publications

References 22 publications

Penetration of an Inferior Vena Cava Filter into the Aorta

Penetration of an Inferior Vena Cava Filter into the Aorta

Tempofilter II implantation in patients with lower extremity fractures and proximal deep vein thrombosis

Vena Kava Filtre Yerlestirme

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About