Purpose
The present study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of advanced inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) retrieval using laser assistance compared with forceps via systematic review and quantitative aggregation of available data.
Methods
Pubmed and Embase were queried from establishment to September 2021. Original studies with a sample size ≥ 5 that reported at least one primary outcome of patients who underwent laser- or forceps-assisted IVCF retrieval were included. Primary outcomes included technical success and complication rates. Baseline characteristics were extracted: age, sex, presence of filter thrombus, strut penetration, previous retrieval attempt, filter dwell time, fluoroscopy time, and filter type. Complications were categorized by type and severity. Categorical data was pooled and evaluated with chi-square or Fisher exact tests.
Results
From the 16 included studies, a total of 673 and 368 patients underwent laser- and forceps-assisted IVCF retrieval, respectively. Successful retrieval was achieved in 98.1 and 93.7% patients from the laser and forceps groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Major complication rates (1.6 vs 2.1%, p = 0.629) and risk of injury to cava or adjacent organs (1.0 vs 1.4%, p = 0.534) were similar between the two groups. A higher proportion of filters from the laser arm were closed-cell design (75.4 vs 68.1%, p = 0.020).
Conclusion
Based on limited available evidence, forceps- and laser-assisted complex IVCF retrievals were equally safe. The use of laser sheath is associated with a higher retrieval rate than forceps alone, though the baseline characteristics of two cohorts were not controlled. Future large-scale case-controlled comparative studies with longer clinical follow-up are warranted.
Smaller balloon diameter demonstrated an increased risk of ISR within IVC stents at 1 year only. When the threshold for ISR was raised to > 75% ISR, all of the above significant results were the same. However, in addition, increasing stent length was associated with a small but significant risk of ISR > 75% when all veins were examined as a single cohort at 1, 3, 5, and 20 years. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates clinically acceptable and decreased rates of ISR compared to prior studies for the IVC, CIV, and EIV stents. Age is a small but significant risk factor for ISR, especially within the EIV. Wallstents may decrease ISR in iliac veins but are similar to SMART stents when placed in the IVC. Larger balloon diameters may help with short-term IVC ISR and larger stents may increase the risk of ISR in the EIV.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.