Retrieval of TRAPEASE and OPTEASE Inferior Vena Cava Filters with Extended Dwell Times

Scher, David M.; Venbrux, Anthony C.; Okapal, Kevin; Gabriel, Gaby E.; Dufour, Robert; Chun, Albert K.; Sarin, Shawn; Akman, Andrew

doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2015.06.021

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The technical success is comparable with the previously described excimer laser-assisted and in situ snares and endobronchial forceps techniques but with fewer complications (23)(24)(25) and with substantially less fluoroscopy time (25). Additional advantages of the 16-F sheath and endobronchial forceps combination potentially include lower costs, widespread availability, and no need for specialized laser training.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

“…Multiple methods have been used to address epithelialization, neointimal hyperplasia, and fibrosis and successfully remove IVC filters (17)(18)(19)(23)(24)(25). Use of endobronchial forceps in conjunction with a standard 12-F and 14-F sheath combination was successful in removing 96% of tip-embedded IVC filters (n = 114) with only one major complication (18).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite using substantially less force compared with standard retrievals, excimer laser-assisted retrieval resulted in one case of acute IVC thrombosis and two cases of acute caval disruption requiring urgent endovascular stent graft placement (23,24). Most recently, combinations of in situ snares and endobronchial forceps, together with 14-F, 16-F, or 18-F sheaths, were used successfully to remove five strut and wall-embedded OptEase filters, with one pseudoaneurysm and one retained strut reported after the procedure and a mean fluoroscopy time of 25 minutes (25).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A 16-F Sheath with Endobronchial Forceps Improves Reported Retrieval Success of Long-Dwelling “Closed Cell” Inferior Vena Cava Filter Designs

Stavropoulos

Shin

Shlansky-Goldberg

et al. 2016

Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A 16-F Sheath with Endobronchial Forceps Improves Reported Retrieval Success of Long-Dwelling “Closed Cell” Inferior Vena Cava Filter Designs

Stavropoulos

Shin

Shlansky-Goldberg

et al. 2016

Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Additionally during retrieval attempts the fibrotic tissue that adheres the filter to the IVC wall may lead to mechanical complications such as filter fragmentation and IVC injury. Complicated retrievals are commonly reported with longer dwell times and the decision to retrieve or not retrieve a filter should be made with caution (28,37).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inferior vena cava filter retrievals, standard and novel techniques

Kuyumcu¹,

Walker²

2016

Cardiovasc. Diagn. Ther.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The placement of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is a well-established management strategy for patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) disease in whom anticoagulant therapy is either contraindicated or has failed. IVC filters may also be placed for VTE prophylaxis in certain circumstances.There has been a tremendous growth in placement of retrievable IVC filters in the past decade yet the majority of the devices are not removed. Unretrieved IVC filters have several well-known complications that increase in frequency as the filter dwell time increases. These complications include caval wall penetration, filter fracture or migration, caval thrombosis and an increased risk for lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Difficulty is sometimes encountered when attempting to retrieve indwelling filters, mainly because of either abnormal filter positioning or endothelization of filter components that are in contact with the IVC wall, thereby causing the filter to become embedded. The length of time that a filter remains indwelling also impacts the retrieval rate, as increased dwell times are associated with more difficult retrievals. Several techniques for difficult retrievals have been described in the medical literature. These techniques range from modifications of standard retrieval techniques to much more complex interventions. Complications related to complex retrievals are more common than those associated with standard retrieval techniques. The risks of complex filter retrievals should be compared with those of life-long anticoagulation associated with an unretrieved filter, and should be individualized. This article summarizes current techniques for IVC filter retrieval from a clinical point of view, with an emphasis on advanced retrieval techniques.

show abstract

“…There is a recently published study examining the delayed retrieval outcomes of the OptEase and TrapEase filters. 35 This retrospective study examined the retrieval of five OptEase and five TrapEase filters that had greater than 60 days of dwell time. The average dwell for the OptEase patients was 977 days (range: 123-2,584 days), and the average dwell for the TrapEase patients was 1,273 days (range: 129-3,582 days).…”

Section: Opteasementioning

confidence: 99%

A Critical Review of Available Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters and Future Directions

Montgomery

Kaufman

2016

Semin intervent Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inferior vena cava filters have been placed in patients for decades for protection against pulmonary embolism. The widespread use of filters has dramatically increased owing at least in part to the approval of retrievable vena cava filters. Retrievable filters have the potential to protect against pulmonary embolism and then be retrieved once no longer needed to avoid potential long-term complications. There are several retrievable vena cava filters available for use. This article discusses the different filter designs as well as the published data on these available filters. When selecting a filter for use, it is important to consider the potential short-term complications and the filters' window for retrieval. Understanding potential long-term complications is also critical, as these devices are approved for permanent placement and many filters are not retrieved. Finally, this article will address research into new designs that may be the future of vena cava filtration.

show abstract

Retrieval of TRAPEASE and OPTEASE Inferior Vena Cava Filters with Extended Dwell Times

Cited by 16 publications

References 9 publications

A 16-F Sheath with Endobronchial Forceps Improves Reported Retrieval Success of Long-Dwelling “Closed Cell” Inferior Vena Cava Filter Designs

A 16-F Sheath with Endobronchial Forceps Improves Reported Retrieval Success of Long-Dwelling “Closed Cell” Inferior Vena Cava Filter Designs

Inferior vena cava filter retrievals, standard and novel techniques

A Critical Review of Available Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters and Future Directions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About