The G&amp;uuml;nther-Tulip Retrievable IVC Filter

Background: A clear indication and strategy for placement of retrievable inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) have not been established. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and disadvantages of the retrievable IVCF use particularly in venous thromboembolism (VTE) patients with malignancy. Hypothesis: Retrievable IVCFs might be safe and useful in VTE patients with malignancy. Methods: The study population consisted of 56 consecutive patients undergoing IVCF placement at our institution from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2011. Prognostic data were retrospectively reviewed in April 2013.Results: Mean follow-up period was 584.6 (range, 1-1857) days. Twenty-six of the 56 patients had a malignancy. In 16 of the 30 patients without malignancy, the filter was retrieved, whereas the other 14 patients eventually received permanent implantation. There was no significant difference in the survival rate between the retrieval group and the nonretrieval group in the nonmalignancy patients (1-year survival rates, 94% vs 85%). In patients with malignancy, the nonretrieval group showed a significantly lower survival rate (P < 0.01). The 1-year and 2-year survival rates were 100% vs 46% and 100% vs 18%, respectively. There was no medical record of pulmonary thromboembolism occurrence or recurrence. All deaths in the patients with malignancy were malignancy related. In 4 of 5 malignancy patients who could undergo tumor resection surgery, adequate thrombus regression enabled us to retrieve the IVCF after surgery. Conclusions: Permanent use of a retrievable IVCF is relatively safe in short-or midterm follow-up regardless of malignancy status. Retrievable filter use might be reasonable in malignancy patients.

show abstract

Midterm Follow‐up After Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement in Venous Thromboembolism Patients With or Without Malignancy

Myojo

Takahashi

Tanaka

et al. 2015

Clinical Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Wer ist verantwortlich für die Entfernung von V.-cava-Filtern

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fact that many inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) in trauma patients are not being removed has been described numerous times in the literature, but nobody really gives a reason why. This case presents a young patient who prophylactically received an optional IVCF after sustaining severe multitrauma. He had a failed retrieval 8 weeks post insertion and consequently was lost to follow-up before a second removal attempt was performed. Institutions inserting IVCF should establish guidelines for following up patients receiving prophylactic IVCF.

show abstract

Günter Tulip Filter Retrieval Experience: Predictors of Successful Retrieval

Turba

Arslan

Meuse

et al. 2009

Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report our experience with Günter Tulip filter placement indications, retrievals, and procedural problems, with emphasis on alternative retrieval techniques. We have identified 92 consecutive patients in whom a Günter Tulip filter was placed and filter removal attempted. We recorded patient demographic information, filter placement and retrieval indications, procedures, standard and nonstandard filter retrieval techniques, complications, and clinical outcomes. The mean time to retrieval for those who experienced filter strut penetration was statistically significant [F(1,90) = 8.55, p = 0.004]. Filter strut(s) IVC penetration and successful retrieval were found to be statistically significant (p = 0.043). The filter hook-IVC relationship correlated with successful retrieval. A modified guidewire loop technique was applied in 8 of 10 cases where the hook appeared to penetrate the IVC wall and could not be engaged with a loop snare catheter, providing additional technical success in 6 of 8 (75%). Therefore, the total filter retrieval success increased from 88 to 95%. In conclusion, the Günter Tulip filter has high successful retrieval rates with low rates of complication. Additional maneuvers such as a guidewire loop method can be used to improve retrieval success rates when the filter hook is endothelialized.

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

The Günther-Tulip Retrievable IVC Filter

Cited by 46 publications

References 28 publications

Midterm Follow‐up After Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement in Venous Thromboembolism Patients With or Without Malignancy

Midterm Follow‐up After Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement in Venous Thromboembolism Patients With or Without Malignancy

Wer ist verantwortlich für die Entfernung von V.-cava-Filtern

Günter Tulip Filter Retrieval Experience: Predictors of Successful Retrieval

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About