Optimizing the Use of Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Oncology Patients: Are All Filters Created Equally?

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Many studies have supported the efficacy of inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) in the setting of venous thromboembolic disease, particularly in oncologic patients who are at increased risk. The advent of retrievable IVCF designs has prompted dramatically expanded use for patients with widely accepted indications but also disproportionately so in patients with so-called extended indications. At the same time, an alarming increase in filter-related complications has been reported both in the literature and through regulatory agencies, leading to government agency-issued warnings. The synergistic effect of these two interconnected phenomena is explained through a careful review of the evolution of IVCF device design. Critical differences exist when comparing retrievable IVCF and permanent IVCF. IVCF utilization can be optimized by prospectively identifying which patients are best served by a specific IVCF device. Careful follow-up strategies are also needed to ensure that all IVCFs are removed as soon as they are no longer needed. Finally, adjunctive techniques for removing “difficult” filters help maximize the number of IVCF removed and minimize IVCF left implanted needlessly.

• References

• 1 Chew HK, Wun T, Harvey D, Zhou H, White RH. Incidence of venous thromboembolism and its effect on survival among patients with common cancers. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166 (4) 458-464
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Guyatt GH, Akl EA, Crowther M, Gutterman DD, Schunemann HJ ; American College of Chest Physicians Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Panel Executive summary: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012; 141 (2) 7S-47S
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Haut ER, Garcia LJ, Shihab HM , et al. The effectiveness of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters in trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg 2013;
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Decousus H, Leizorovicz A, Parent F , et al. A clinical trial of vena caval filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis. Prévention du Risque d'Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave Study Group. N Engl J Med 1998; 338 (7) 409-415
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 PREPIC Study Group. Eight-year follow-up of patients with permanent vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism: the PREPIC (Prevention du Risque d'Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) randomized study. Circulation 2005; 112 (3) 416-422
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Gaspard SF, Gaspard DJ. Retrievable inferior vena cava filters are rarely removed. Am Surg 2009; 75 (5) 426-428
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Interventional News. Available at: http://www.cxvascular.com/in-latest-news/interventional-news-latest-news/study-based-on-real-world-us-database-sheds-light-on-inferior-vena-cava-perforations-by-filters . Accessed October 12, 2013
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Tam MD, Spain J, Lieber M, Geisinger M, Sands MJ, Wang W. Fracture and distant migration of the Bard Recovery filter: a retrospective review of 363 implantations for potentially life-threatening complications. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2012; 23 (2) 199-205 , e1
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Zhou D, Spain J, Moon E, Mclennan G, Sands MJ, Wang W. Retrospective review of 120 celect inferior vena cava filter retrievals: experience at a single institution. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2012; 23 (12) 1557-1563
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 United States Food and Drug Administration. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters: Initial Communications: Risk of Adverse Events with Long Term Use. Maryland, MD: United States Food and Drug Administration; August 9, 2010
  Google Scholar
• 11 Lynch FC. A method for following patients with retrievable inferior vena cava filters: results and lessons learned from the first 1,100 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011; 22 (11) 1507-1512
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Minocha J, Idakoji I, Riaz A , et al. Improving inferior vena cava filter retrieval rates: impact of a dedicated inferior vena cava filter clinic. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2010; 21 (12) 1847-1851
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Ryu RK, Parikh P, Gupta R , et al. Optimizing IVC filter utilization: a prospective study of the impact of interventional radiologist consultation. J Am Coll Radiol 2012; 9 (9) 657-660
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Eifler AC, Lewandowski RJ, Gupta R , et al. Optional or permanent: clinical factors that optimize inferior vena cava filter utilization. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2013; 24 (1) 35-40
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Esparaz AM, Ryu RK, Gupta R, Resnick SA, Salem R, Lewandowski RJ. Fibrin cap disruption: an adjunctive technique for inferior vena cava filter retrieval. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2012; 23 (9) 1233-1235
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Stavropoulos SW, Dixon RG, Burke CT , et al. Embedded inferior vena cava filter removal: use of endobronchial forceps. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2008; 19 (9) 1297-1301
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Kuo WT, Odegaard JI, Louie JD , et al. Photothermal ablation with the excimer laser sheath technique for embedded inferior vena cava filter removal: initial results from a prospective study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011; 22 (6) 813-823
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Smouse HB, Amardeep J. Is market growth of vena cava filters justified? A review of indication, use, and market analysis. Endovasc Today 2010; 9 (2) 74-77
  PubMedGoogle Scholar