Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Factors that Affect Retrieval Success

Geisbüsch, Philipp; Benenati, James F.; Peña, Constantino; Couvillon, Joseph; Powell, Alex; Gandhi, Ripal; Samuels, Shaun; Uthoff, Heiko

doi:10.1007/s00270-011-0268-x

Cited by 42 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have identified prolonged filter dwell time as an independent negative predictor for successful rIVCF retrieval. In a series of 200 patients using 3 different rIVCF devices, Geisbusch et al 10 described a dwell time of >90 days as being associated with retrieval failure, similar to results reported by Averginos et al 31 and Marquess et al 9 Glocker et al 7 found that Cook Celect and Tulip filters with dwell times of >117 days correlated with rIVCF retrieval failure. Of note, these studies except for Marquess et al reported the use of various advanced retrieval techniques when standard techniques were insufficient; however, these techniques were limited to balloon disruption, use of multiple endovascular snares, snare-over-guidewire techniques (similar to loop wire technique), or filter displacement with a reverse curve catheter.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

“…[3][4][5] Although poor clinical follow-up of patients with these devices plays an important role, 6 prolonged filter implantation has been associated with retrieval failure rates as high as 43%. [7][8][9][10][11] Furthermore, prolonged rIVCF dwell time is associated with device-related complications, including fracture, migration, organ penetration, and increased risk of deep venous thrombosis. 11 These concerns were mirrored in a 2014 safety communication issued by the US Food and Drug Administration urging rIVCF retrieval once no longer indicated.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Defining Prolonged Dwell Time: When Are Advanced Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval Techniques Necessary?

Desai

Laws

Salem

et al. 2017

Circ: Cardiovascular Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background— Despite growth in placement of retrievable inferior vena cava filters, retrieval rates remain low. Filters with extended implantation times present a challenge to retrieval, where standard techniques often fail. The development of advanced retrieval techniques has positively impacted retrieval of retrievable inferior vena cava filters with prolonged dwell times; however, there is no precise definition of the time point when advanced techniques become necessary. We aim to define prolonged retrievable inferior vena cava filters dwell time by determining the inflection point when the risk of standard retrieval technique failure increases significantly, necessitating advanced retrieval techniques to maintain overall technical success of retrieval. Methods and Results— From January 2009 to April 2015, 762 retrieval procedures were identified from a prospectively acquired database. We assessed patient age/sex, filter dwell time, procedural technical success, the use of advanced techniques, and procedure-related adverse events. Overall retrieval success rate was 98% (n=745). When standard retrieval techniques failed, advanced techniques were used; this was necessary 18% of the time (n=138). Logistic regression identified that dwell time was the only risk factor for failure of standard retrieval technique (odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.05–1.10; P <0.001). Spline function regression analysis demonstrated that if dwell time exceeded 7 months, the risk of standard technique failure was 40.9%. Adverse events occurred at a rate of 2% (n=18; 15 minor and 3 major). Conclusions— The necessity of advanced techniques to maintain technical success of retrieval increases with dwell time. Patients with retrievable inferior vena cava filters in place beyond 7 months may benefit from referral to centers with expertise in advanced filter retrieval.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining Prolonged Dwell Time: When Are Advanced Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval Techniques Necessary?

Desai

Laws

Salem

et al. 2017

Circ: Cardiovascular Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Highvolume centers tended to achieve a better than average success rate. Older patients ([80 years) and the presence of significant comorbidity has been shown to be associated with a significantly reduced probability for attempted retrieval [11]. Retrieval was statistically more successful in our cohort if attempted \9 weeks (\62 days) from insertion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…Retrieval was statistically more successful in our cohort if attempted \9 weeks (\62 days) from insertion. A time interval of[90 days between implantation and attempted retrieval also was associated with greater retrieval failure (OR 19.8, p = 0.009) in another recent study [11]. Interestingly, in those cases where there was retrieval failure a high proportion were within the time period defined by the manufacturers for retrieval, i.e., with the Bard G2 (100 %), Cook Celect (97 %), Cordis Optease (83 %), and Pyramed ALN (87.5 %; Table 1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

British Society of Interventional Radiology (BSIR) Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filter Registry

Uberoi

Tapping

Chalmers

et al. 2013

Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The British Society of Interventional Radiology (BSIR) Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filter Registry was produced to provide an audit of current United Kingdom (UK) practice regarding placement and retrieval of IVC filters to address concerns regarding their safety. Methods The IVC filter registry is a web-based registry, launched by the BSIR on behalf of its membership in October 2007. This report is based on prospectively collected data from October 2007 to March 2011. This report contains analysis of data on 1,434 IVC filter placements and 400 attempted retrievals performed at 68 UK centers. Data collected included patient demographics, insertion and retrieval data, and patient follow-up. Results IVC filter use in the majority of patients in the UK follows accepted CIRSE guidelines. Filter placement is usually a low-risk procedure, with a low major complication rate (\0.5 %). Cook Gunther Tulip (560 filters: 39 %) and Celect (359 filters: 25 %) filters constituted the majority of IVC filters inserted, with Bard G2, Recovery filters, Cordis Trapease, and OptEase constituting most of the remainder (445 filters: 31 %). More than 96 % of IVC filters deployed as intended. Operator inexperience (\25 procedure) was significantly associated with complications (p \ 0.001). Of the IVC filters initially intended for temporary placement, retrieval was attempted in 78 %. Of these retrieval was technically successful in 83 %. Successful retrieval was significantly reduced for implants left in situ for[9 weeks versus those with a shorter dwell time.

show abstract

“…Th e reduced tilt of Denali fi lters could lead to better function of the fi lter and may reduce diffi culty in future retrieval. Prior studies confl ict as to whether fi lter angulation contributes to diffi culty in retrieval, with some indicating that tilt does not play a role (25,26), and others suggesting tilt does impact ease of retrieval (24,27,28). In this study, angulation of the fi lter was the only independent predictor of diffi cult fi lter retrieval, as indicated by prolonged fl uoroscopy time and use of additional retrieval devices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Factors Associated with Reduced Radiation Exposure, Cost, and Technical Difficulty of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement and Retrieval

Neill

Charles

Pflager

et al. 2017

Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Factors that Affect Retrieval Success

Abstract: Patient age >80 years and a history of malignancy are predictors of a reduced probability for retrieval attempt. The rate of retrieval failure is low and seems to be associated with a time interval of >90 days between filter placement and retrieval.

Cited by 42 publications

References 16 publications

Defining Prolonged Dwell Time: When Are Advanced Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval Techniques Necessary?

Defining Prolonged Dwell Time: When Are Advanced Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval Techniques Necessary?

British Society of Interventional Radiology (BSIR) Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filter Registry

Factors Associated with Reduced Radiation Exposure, Cost, and Technical Difficulty of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement and Retrieval

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About