Analysis of Aortic Growth Rates in Uncomplicated Type B Dissection

Abstract

retrievable filters compared with permanent filters are not clearly understood. The purpose of this study was to compare the complication rates between retrievable and permanent IVC filters. Methods: A retrospective review identified 606 IVC filters, of which 366 were retrievable and 240 were permanent, placed between January 2001 and July 2015. Patients with retrievable filters were compared with those with permanent filters with respect to demographics, filter model, indication for filter, and comorbidities as well as the number and types of complications. Filter complications were further subcategorized as thrombotic or device related. The percentage of filters that were eventually retrieved was also evaluated. Results: A total of 21 filters were identified with at least one complication for an overall filter complication rate of 3.4%. Of these, 17 were in patients who had retrievable filters (4.6%) and 4 were in patients with permanent filters (1.6%; Table). The most common complications identified were filter thrombosis and perforation of the vena cava. Thrombotic complications occurred at similar rates in both groups (2.4% vs 2.0%). Device-related complications were more common in patients with retrievable filters (4.0% vs 0.4%). Of the retrievable filters that were placed, only 48 (13.1%) were eventually retrieved. Conclusions: Retrievable filters are rarely retrieved and are associated with a higher rate of complications compared with permanent filters. This should be taken into account in deciding which filter is most appropriate for a patient. However, the overall complication rate for both types of filters is low, and IVC filters continue to be a viable option for protection in patients who have or are at risk for VTEs.