Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava filters are not getting retrieved

Dabbagh, Ousama; Nagam, Nivedita; Chitima-Matsiga, Rebecca; Bearelly, Smitha; Bearelly, Dilip

doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2010.08.024

Cited by 44 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless; no randomized clinical trials have been performed. 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).…”

Section: Inferior Vena Cava (Ivc) Filters In Cancer Patientssupporting

confidence: 63%

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Cancer Patients

Abdel‐Razeq¹

2012

Deep Vein Thrombosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Inferior Vena Cava (Ivc) Filters In Cancer Patientssupporting

confidence: 63%

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Cancer Patients

Abdel‐Razeq¹

2012

Deep Vein Thrombosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…All retrievable IVC filters can function as permanent filters if they are not removed. Several studies have indicated that only a small percentage of retrievable IVC filters (2-20 %) are removed and device related complications have been reported [4][5][6][7][8]. Recently the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a medical alert to address these considerations and emphasized filter removal as soon as protection from PE is no longer necessary [9].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Uberoi

Tapping

Chalmers

et al. 2013

Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…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.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%