The LGM Vena-Tech Caval Filter: Results of a Multicenter Study

Ricco, Jean‐Baptiste; Dubreuil, F; Reynaud, Philippe; Bordeaux, Jack; Gamain, J; Douarec, P Le; Garbé, Jean-François; Mathurin, Christian; J, Brehier; Pellerin, Monique

doi:10.1016/s0890-5096(06)60457-3

Cited by 26 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The literature contains hundreds of reports of immediate and long-term outcomes for patients in whom these devices have been placed, but the reports do not use consistent standards, definitions, or techniques, making it difficult to compare outcomes and determine the relative efficacy and safety of the available devices. [1][2][3] Successful deployment of a vena caval filter fundamentally requires a patent filter, properly positioned within the vena cava in a manner that protects against pulmonary embolism. With this premise, reporting standards have been developed to assess caval filter placement, function, and other outcome parameters.…”

Section: Reporting Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recommended reporting standards for vena caval filter placement and patient follow-up

Greenfield

Rutherford

1999

Journal of Vascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Reporting Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recommended reporting standards for vena caval filter placement and patient follow-up

Greenfield

Rutherford

1999

Journal of Vascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Davison et al 3 reported successful placement of the TrapEase filter in 5 patients by using the antecubital vein. Ricco et al 4 reported successful placement of LGM vena cava filters using the subclavian vein approach in 8 patients; however, this study did not evaluate the TrapEase filter.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

TrapEase Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement: Use of the Subclavian Vein

Stone

AbuRahma

Hass³

et al. 2004

Vasc Endovascular Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the safety and technical success of TrapEase inferior vena cava filter placement via the subclavian vein. As of yet, no reports in the literature have specifically investigated the use of the subclavian vein as a route for deploying TrapEase vena cava filters. Retrospective chart review was conducted of 135 patients with attempted TrapEase inferior vena cava filter placement over a 2-year period. In a majority of cases, the choice of subclavian vein approach was based primarily on surgeon preference. Other circumstances for subclavian vein deployment included cervical immobilization secondary to trauma, desire for concomitant placement of a subclavian long-term central venous access catheter, and patient body habitus limiting exposure to the internal jugular vein. One hundred and thirty-five filters were placed over this 2-year period. The internal jugular vein approach was used in 56 patients, the femoral vein approach in 39 patients, and the subclavian vein approach in 40 patients. Thirty-nine of the 40 TrapEase filter placements using the subclavian vein were successful. Twenty-six were deployed through the right subclavian vein and 14 through the left subclavian vein. The single failed subclavian deployment was due to the inability to pass the guidewire adequately into the inferior vena cava after successful cannulation of the right subclavian vein. The average deployment time for subclavian vein placement was 26 minutes when TrapEase filter placement was the only procedure performed. No insertional complications were encountered, specifically no pneumothoraces confirmed by chest radiography or fluoroscopy. The subclavian vein provides an alternative site of access for the TrapEase inferior vena cava filter. This route is comparable to other alternative methods evaluated both in average deployment time and complication occurrence. Furthermore, the subclavian vein route is valuable in patients with limited central access and where combined long-term central venous catheter placement using the subclavian vein is desirable.

show abstract

“…was the filter of choice for vena cavas less then 30 mm because of reliability and ease of bedside placement. 13,14 Fluoroscopy was used to confirm guidewire progression and IVC filter deployment at the targeted CAT scan selected vertebral body. Early in the study, a completion cavogram was not performed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%