Retrieval characteristics of the Bard Denali and Argon Option inferior vena cava filters

Dowell, Joshua D.; Semaan, D.; Makary, Mina S.; Ryu, John; Khayat, Mamdouh; Pan, Xueliang

doi:10.1016/j.jvsv.2017.05.027

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A single-centre retrospective study comparing retrieval characteristics of Option Elite (n = 60) and Denali (n = 43) IVC filters over 36 months found that Option filters had a significantly higher average fluoroscopy time (12.18 vs 6.85 minutes) and higher utilization of advanced techniques for removal (20% vs 4.65%). In addition, 11.7% (n = 7) of Option filters had strut perforation at the time of retrieval [23]. Similar findings of increased fluoroscopy time and escalation to complex techniques was noted in a retrospective study comparing Option, Denali, and Guther Tulip IVC filters [24].…”

Section: Preserve Trial Ivc Filterssupporting

confidence: 58%

Section: Preserve Trial Ivc Filtersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An additional design feature allows the Option Elite filter to be placed in caval diameters up to 30 mm, whereas most retrievable filters are approved for caval sizes up to 28 mm. The Option Elite filter is considered MRI conditional [23]. Most complications reported with Option Elite filters describe a longer procedure time for retrieval or increased need for complex retrieval techniques.…”

Section: Option Elitementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since the ''Option Elite'' (released 2013) is only minimally different from its predecessor the ''Option,'' earlier data on the Option filter may also reflect complications seen with the Option Elite [23]. In a prospective clinical trial, 100 patients underwent Option IVC filter placement and were followed for either 180 days after filter placement or 30 days after filter retrieval [25].…”

Section: Option Elitementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Gunther Tulip (Cook Medical) is a retrievable filter cleared by FDA in 2003 [1]. The filter consists of 4 longer primary legs with anchors and 8 secondary limbs that connect the primary legs ( Figure 11) [23]. Hooks are present at the caudal ends of the filter legs, which anchor the device to the wall of the IVC [10].…”

Section: Gunther Tulipmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Inferior Vena Cava Filter Evaluation and Management for the Diagnostic Radiologist: A Comprehensive Review Including Inferior Vena Cava Filter-Related Complications and PRESERVE Trial Filters

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inferior vena cava filters are commonly encountered devices on diagnostic imaging that were highlighted in a 2010 Food and Drug Administration safety advisory regarding their complications from long-term implantation. The Predicting the Safety and Effectiveness of Inferior Vena Cava Filters (PRESERVE) trial is an ongoing after-market study investigating the safety and utility of commonly utilized filters in practice today. While most of these filters are safe, prompt recognition and management of any filter-associated complication is imperative to prevent or reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with them. This review is aimed at discussing the appropriate utilization and placement of inferior vena cava filters in addition to the recognition of filter-associated complications on cross-sectional imaging. An overview of the PRESRVE trial filters is also provided to understand each filter's propensity for specific complications.

show abstract

Section: Preserve Trial Ivc Filterssupporting

confidence: 58%

Section: Preserve Trial Ivc Filtersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Option Elitementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Option Elitementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Gunther Tulipmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations