British Society of Interventional Radiology (BSIR) Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filter Registry

Abstract

Purpose The British Society of Interventional Radiology (BSIR) Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filter Registry was produced to provide an audit of current United Kingdom (UK) practice regarding placement and retrieval of IVC filters to address concerns regarding their safety. Methods The IVC filter registry is a web-based registry, launched by the BSIR on behalf of its membership in October 2007. This report is based on prospectively collected data from October 2007 to March 2011. This report contains analysis of data on 1,434 IVC filter placements and 400 attempted retrievals performed at 68 UK centers. Data collected included patient demographics, insertion and retrieval data, and patient follow-up. Results IVC filter use in the majority of patients in the UK follows accepted CIRSE guidelines. Filter placement is usually a low-risk procedure, with a low major complication rate (\0.5 %). Cook Gunther Tulip (560 filters: 39 %) and Celect (359 filters: 25 %) filters constituted the majority of IVC filters inserted, with Bard G2, Recovery filters, Cordis Trapease, and OptEase constituting most of the remainder (445 filters: 31 %). More than 96 % of IVC filters deployed as intended. Operator inexperience (\25 procedure) was significantly associated with complications (p \ 0.001). Of the IVC filters initially intended for temporary placement, retrieval was attempted in 78 %. Of these retrieval was technically successful in 83 %. Successful retrieval was significantly reduced for implants left in situ for[9 weeks versus those with a shorter dwell time.

Vena Cava Filter Retrieval Rates and Factors Associated With Retrieval in a Large US Cohort

“…Procedural codes were utilized to identify VCF placement; however, these codes are not specific to permanent or retrievable devices. As of 2006, retrievable devices made up about 85% of the VCF market in the United States, which likely increased to >90% since then 38, 39, 40, 41. Therefore, the retrieval estimates presented here are underestimated.…”

Vena Cava Filter Retrieval Rates and Factors Associated With Retrieval in a Large U.S Cohort

“…As of 2006, retrievable devices made up about 85% of the VCF market in the United States, which likely increased to >90% since then. [38][39][40][41] Therefore, the retrieval estimates presented here are underestimated. Assuming that 10% to 20% of all VCFs used are permanent and thus cannot be retrieved, this would make our estimated retrieval 26% to 30%, making this corrected estimate near previous estimates of national retrieval rates of 30%.…”

Renal artery stenosis on duplex ultrasound due to inferior vena cava filter leg impingement

“…4,5 The British Society of Interventional Radiology (BSIR) recently evaluated placement and retrieval of 1434 IVC filters and reported that ....................................................................................................................... 88 patients demonstrated new lower limb DVT and/or IVC thrombosis following IVC filter placement. 6 At the present time, there is no reported consensus to establish routine surveillance guidelines of IVC filters; however, there are guidelines encouraging IVC device retrievals when the duration of treatment for a DVT/PE has been met or when the risk of a PE is no longer high, and/or the contraindication for anticoagulation is no longer a consideration. 7 In this case, the noninvasive renal artery duplex examination played a critical role in her clinical outcome.…”