A Prospective Long-term Study of 220 Patients With a Retrievable Vena Cava Filter for Secondary Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Cancer Patients

“…In one large retrospective study that included 252 evaluable patients who had retrievable filter placed for different indications; only 47 filters were successfully retrieved yielding a retrieval rate of 18.7% ( Dabbagh et al, 2010). Similar or higher retrieval rates were reported by others (Mismetti et al, 2007).…”

Inferior vena cava filters in patients with advanced-stage cancer

“…Recent data suggests that the use of these filters may be associated with low rates of PE and insertion complications. [11][12][13] Regardless of the type of filter placed, the most recent American Colleague of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines recommend systemic anticoagulation, when possible, even with the filter in place. 14 This is evident in our study patients; almost 40% of them were anticoagulated, half of them were initially considered to have a contraindication to anticoagulation and thus had the filter inserted.…”

Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Indications, Outcomes, and Evidence

“…Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of the retrievable IVCF in 2003, several new devices have come to market in the USA, including the Celect filters (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN), Option Filter (Argon, Plano, TX), Crux Filter (Volcano, San Diego, CA), ALN Filter (ALN Implants Chirurgicaux, Ghisonaccia, France), OptEase filter (Cordis, Fremont, CA), and multiple iterations of the Bard filters (Bard Peripheral Vascular, Tempe, AZ) [15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. The most recently published (2014) FDA-mandated clinical device trial described the results with the Denali Retrievable Vena Cava Filter (Bard Peripheral Vascular, Tempe, AZ) [22].…”