Delayed Retroperitoneal Arterial Hemorrhage after Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filter Insertion: Case Report and Literature Review of Caval Perforations by IVC Filters

Woodward, Euan; Farber, Alik; Wagner, Willis H.; Cossman, David V.; Cohen, Jordan L.; Silverman, J. M.; Levin, Phillip M.; Frisch, David M.

doi:10.1007/s10016-001-0150-4

Cited by 68 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…24 Concurrent anticoagulation has also been associated with retroperitoneal hemorrhage, which may promote filter penetration. 24,25 This study shows an overall reported occurrence of filter penetration of 19% (1699 of 9002). However, the incidence was as high as 34% (634 of 1870) when we assessed the 18 clinical studies performed according to Society of Interventional Radiology guidelines.…”

Section: -13mentioning

confidence: 72%

Caval Penetration by Inferior Vena Cava Filters

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background-Limited penetration into the caval wall is an important securing mechanism for inferior vena cava (IVC) filters; however, caval penetration can also cause unintentional complications. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence, severity, clinical consequences, and management of filter penetration across a range of commercially available IVC filters. Methods and Results-The MEDLINE database was searched for all studies showed evidence of organ/structure involvement. Among patients with penetration, 8% were symptomatic, 45% were asymptomatic, and 47% had unknown symptomatology. The most frequently reported symptom was pain (77%, 108 of 140). Major complications were reported in 83 patients (5%). These complications required interventions including surgical removal of the IVC filter (n=63), endovascular stent placement or embolization (n=11), endovascular retrieval of the permanent filter (n=4), and percutaneous nephrostomy or ureteral stent placement (n=3). Complications led to death in 2 patients. A total of 87% of patients (127 of 146) underwent premature filter retrieval or interventions for underlying symptoms or penetration-related complications. Conclusions-Caval penetration is a frequent but clinically underrecognized complication of IVC filter placement.Symptomatic patients accounted for nearly 1/10th of all penetrations; most of these cases had organ/structure involvement. Interventions with endovascular retrieval and surgery were required in most of these symptomatic patients.

show abstract

Section: -13mentioning

confidence: 72%

Caval Penetration by Inferior Vena Cava Filters

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There were no large-or small-scale complications, and this is in keeping with the findings from other published series. 19,26,27,28 The high rate of patient handling under general anesthesia was due to the fact that, in 16 cases, the implantation of the filter was on the same occasion as a largescale operation necessarily conducted under this type of anesthesia. When the blocking of the inferior vena cava was independently performed, local anesthesia concomitant with light sedation was preferred, so as to decrease the scale of anesthesia without causing discomfort to the patient.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vena Cava Filters in Cancer Patients: Experience With 50 Patients

Zerati

Wolosker

Yazbek

et al. 2005

Clinics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE:To study the immediate and late results obtained from the implantation of vena cava filters in cancer patients with deep vein thrombosis concomitant with neoplasia. METHODS: This was a retrospective evaluation of 50 patients with an association of cancer and deep venous thrombosis who underwent interruption of the inferior vena cava and the insertion of permanent vena cava filters. The indications for the procedure, filter implantation technique, early and late complications related to the operation, and the clinical evolution were evaluated. RESULTS: The most frequent indication for filter implantation was the contraindication for full anticoagulant treatment (80%). The femoral vein was the preferred access route (86% of the patients). There were no complications related to the surgical procedure. During the follow-up, the following complications were observed: 1 episode of nonfatal pulmonary thromboembolism, 2 cases of occlusion of the inferior vena cava, and 1 case of thrombus retained in the device. Twenty patients (40%) died due to progression of the neoplasm. CONCLUSIONS: Interruption of the inferior cava vein using an endoluminal filter is a procedure with a low rate of complications. It is a safe and efficient measure for preventing pulmonary embolism in cancer patients who have deep vein thrombosis of the lower limbs.

show abstract

“…A pierced lumbar artery was also attributed etiologically to delayed retroperitoneal hemorrhage after filter deployment. In 2 cases with a Greenfield filter, bleeding from a pierced lumbar artery was found upon operation (5,6). Other untoward sequelae from penetrated filter struts include duodenal perforation, penetration of the abdominal aorta, and small bowel obstruction (3).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrievable Guenther Tulip Filter Complicated by Sepsis and Retroperitoneal Hemorrhage: Successful Management by Filter Retrieval

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We encountered complications of septic shock and retroperitoneal hemorrhage which occurred after implantation of a retrievable Günther Tulip filter. A 79-year-old woman was diagnosed as right femoral vein thrombosis, and a retrievable Günther Tulip filter was deployed prior to a total knee replacement surgery. However, the patient developed septicemia due to Citrobacter freundii, followed by thrombocytopenia and retroperitoneal hemorrhage. A large hematoma was formed along the lateral side of the filter struts. We considered that the filter should be removed to control retroperitoneal hemorrhage and prevent secondary infection of the hematoma. Removal of the retrievable filter was effective in managing these complications.

show abstract

Delayed Retroperitoneal Arterial Hemorrhage after Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filter Insertion: Case Report and Literature Review of Caval Perforations by IVC Filters

Cited by 68 publications

References 15 publications

Caval Penetration by Inferior Vena Cava Filters

Caval Penetration by Inferior Vena Cava Filters

Vena Cava Filters in Cancer Patients: Experience With 50 Patients

Retrievable Guenther Tulip Filter Complicated by Sepsis and Retroperitoneal Hemorrhage: Successful Management by Filter Retrieval

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About