Inferior vena caval filters: 5 years of experience in a tertiary care center

Saour, Jalal; Harthi, Abdulaziz Al; Sherif, Mona El; Bakhsh, Ebtisam; Mammo, Layla

doi:10.4103/0256-4947.57166

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Only 14 (51.9%) of the 27 temporary filters inserted were eventually retrieved. [ 24 ] However, their data do not reflect current practice because the vast majority of filters inserted nowadays are retrievable. In the present study, indications for permanent filter, death and loss to follow-up were the most common causes for not retrieving IVC filters.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indications, retrieval rate, and complications of inferior vena cava filters: Single-center experience in Saudi Arabia

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND:Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is indicated in patients with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) in whom therapeutic anticoagulation is contraindicated. While prophylactic insertion of an IVC filter may be considered for patients at high risk of VTE, there are significant differences between clinical guidelines on the role of IVC filters. These discrepancies have arisen predominantly because of the paucity of data on the efficacy and safety of IVC filters. We, therefore, evaluated the indications for filter insertion, the rate of filter retrieval and complications in patients who received IVC filters at King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.METHODS:A descriptive, retrospective review of electronic- and paper-based medical records was performed. Consecutive sampling was used to study all adult patients who received an IVC filter at KAMC between 2007 and 2016 and met the inclusion criteria.RESULTS:A total of 382 IVC filters were inserted. 113 patients (30%) had an acute VTE and a contraindication to anticoagulation while 53 patients (14%) received an IVC filter in the absence of VTE (i.e., prophylactic). Only 124 (32.5%) IVC filters were eventually retrieved. The most common reason for nonretrieval was the need for permanent filtration (155, 60%). Thrombotic complications developed in 72 (19%) patients; nine patients had fatal pulmonary embolism.CONCLUSION:The insertion of IVC filters in this cohort was associated with low retrieval rate and relatively high incidence of thrombotic complications. Follow-up of patients is required to detect IVC filter-related complications and to increase retrieval rate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indications, retrieval rate, and complications of inferior vena cava filters: Single-center experience in Saudi Arabia

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Inferior vena cava filters are usually utilized in many clinical situations ( Table 1 ). 5 , 6 However, many of these indications are subjective, and consensus may occasionally be difficult to reach. In a community-based study, researchers at McMaster University reviewed 1547 local county residents with confirmed diagnosis of acute VTE and without a prior IVC filter.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inferior vena cava filters in cancer patients: to filter or not to filter

Abdel‐Razeq¹,

Mansour²,

Ismael³

et al. 2011

TCRM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:Cancer and its treatment are recognized risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE); active cancer accounts for almost 20% of all newly diagnosed VTE. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are utilized to provide mechanical thromboprophylaxis to prevent pulmonary embolism (PE) or to avoid bleeding from systemic anticoagulation in high-risk situations. In this report, and utilizing a case study, we will address the appropriate utilization of such filters in cancer patients.Methods:The case of a 43-year-old female patient with rectal cancer, who developed deep vein thrombosis following a complicated medical course, will be presented. The patient was anticoagulated with a low molecular weight heparin, but a few months later and following an episode of bleeding, an IVC filter was planned. Using the PubMed database, articles published in English language addressing issues related to IVC filters in cancer patients were accessed and will be presented.Results:Many recent studies questioned the need to insert IVC filters in advanced-stage cancer patients, particularly those whose anticipated survival is short and prevention of PE may be of little clinical benefit and could be a poor utilization of resources.Conclusion:Systemic anticoagulation can be safely offered for the majority of cancer patients. When the risk of bleeding or pulmonary embolism is high, IVC filters can be utilized. However, placement of such filters should take into consideration the stage of disease and life expectancy of such patients.

show abstract

“…[8] Limited retrospective data from Saudi Arabia have indicated retrieval rates between 30% and 50% of retrievable filters. [9,10] However, nearly 60% of filters in this population were not retrieved because they were initially inserted as permanent devices, or patients required permanent filtration. In the Vascular and Interventional Radiology Department within our center, we established a departmental registry follow-up form in July 2015 to improve retrieval rates of IVCFs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Effective is a Departmental Registry Follow-up form for Improving Retrieval of Inferior Vena Cava Filters? A Single-center Experience

Arabi

Almusallam

Alkhathlan

et al. 2018

The Arab Journal of Interventional Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This study evaluated the impact of a departmental registry follow-up form on the retrieval rate of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. Materials and Methods: We performed a case–controlled retrospective study of all patients who had received such filters 2 years before and after the follow-up registry was implemented at the study center in June 2015. Patients were analyzed based on age, gender, indication, type of filter, date and location of filter insertion, date of retrieval, dwelling time, and previous attempts at retrieval. The two groups were compared in terms of filter type, rate of retrieval, and dwelling time, before and after the registry was implemented. Results: Between June 2013 and May 2017, 307 filters were inserted in 183 males and 124 females. Of these filters, 296 (96.42%) were placed below the renal veins and 11 (3.58%) were placed suprarenally. A total of 148 (48.21%) filters were inserted before implementing the follow-up form and 159 (51.79%) were inserted afterward. The retrieval rate was 35.81% before implementation of the registry form and 38.36% afterward. The mean dwelling time of retrieved filters prior to implementation was 32 days and 48 days during the 2 years after implementation, respectively. Filter retrieval was successful in 110 patients from the first attempt (96.49%) and four patients required more than one attempt (3.51%). Conclusion: The departmental vena cava filters' registry resulted in minimal improvement of retrievability rates. Younger age was associated with increased likelihood of retrieval. These data suggest that additional measures are required to further enhance retrieval rates.

show abstract

Inferior vena caval filters: 5 years of experience in a tertiary care center

Cited by 8 publications

References 11 publications

Indications, retrieval rate, and complications of inferior vena cava filters: Single-center experience in Saudi Arabia

Indications, retrieval rate, and complications of inferior vena cava filters: Single-center experience in Saudi Arabia

Inferior vena cava filters in cancer patients: to filter or not to filter

How Effective is a Departmental Registry Follow-up form for Improving Retrieval of Inferior Vena Cava Filters? A Single-center Experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About