Abstract
Background
Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are widely used in clinical practice to prevent large, clinically significant pulmonary emboli. Modern filters are designed to be retrievable within a specific time window; however, many become lost to follow-up.
Aim
To examine the insertion and retrieval patterns of IVC filters in a tertiary referral teaching hospital in Ireland.
Methods
A retrospective review of all IVC filter insertions and retrievals was performed in a tertiary referral university teaching hospital which incorporates the national referral centre for pelvic and acetabular trauma, over a 22-month period.
Results
Fifty-seven patients underwent IVC filter insertion with 100 % technical success. The most common indication was prophylaxis in patients at high risk of deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary emboli (64.9 %), followed by patients with contra-indication to anticoagulation (24.6 %) and breakthrough thromboembolic events despite anticoagulation (10.5 %). IVC filter retrievals were attempted in 48.9 % of patients with a success rate of 86.9 %. The mean dwell time for retrieved IVC filters was 159.4 days.
Conclusion
Inferior vena cava filter insertion and retrieval patterns in our centre were comparable to trends reported internationally with scope for improvement in terms of filter retrieval rates and minimising filter dwell time. Particular vigilance is required in younger patients where the indication for filter insertion was prophylactic.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Angel LF, Tapson V, Galgon RE, Restrepo MI, Kaufman J (2011) Systematic review of the use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22:1522–1530
Decousus H, Leizorovicz A, Parent F et al (1998) A clinical trial of vena caval filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med 338:409–415
Kuo WT, Robertson SW, Odegaard JI, Hofmann LV (2013) Complex retrieval of fractured, embedded, and penetrating inferior vena cava filters: a prospective study with histologic and electron microscopic analysis. J Vasc Interv Radiol 24:622–630
McLoney ED, Krishnasamy VP, Castle JC, Yang X, Guy G (2013) Complications of celect, gunther tulip, and greenfield inferior vena cava filters on CT follow-up: a single-institution experience. J Vasc Interv Radiol 24:1723–1729
Nazzal M, Chan E, Nazzal M et al (2010) Complications related to inferior vena cava filters: a single-center experience. Ann Vasc Surg 24:480–486
Usoh F, Hingorani A, Ascher E et al (2010) Prospective randomized study comparing the clinical outcomes between inferior vena cava Greenfield and TrapEase filters. J Vasc Surg 52:394–399
Hammond CJ, Bakshi DR, Currie RJ et al (2009) Audit of the use of IVC filters in the UK: experience from three centres over 12 years. Clin Radiol 64:502–510
Uberoi R, Tapping CR, Chalmers N, Allgar V (2013) British society of interventional radiology (BSIR) inferior vena cava (IVC) filter registry. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 36:1548–1561
Ray CE Jr, Mitchell E, Zipser S, Kao EY, Brown CF, Moneta GL (2006) Outcomes with retrievable inferior vena cava filters: a multicenter study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17:1595–1604
Minocha J, Idakoji I, Riaz A et al (2010) Improving inferior vena cava filter retrieval rates: impact of a dedicated inferior vena cava filter clinic. J Vasc Intervent Radiol 21:1847–1851
Conflict of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kok, H.K., Salati, U., O’Brien, C. et al. Inferior vena cava filter insertion and retrieval patterns in a tertiary referral centre in Ireland. Ir J Med Sci 184, 345–348 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-014-1116-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-014-1116-1