The Safety and Effectiveness of the Retrievable Option Inferior Vena Cava Filter: A United States Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study

Johnson, Matthew S.; Nemcek, Albert A.; Benenati, James F.; Baumann, Dirk S.; Dolmatch, Bart L.; Kaufman, John A.; Garcia, Mark J.; Stecker, Michael S.; Venbrux, Anthony C.; Haskal, Ziv J.; Avelar, Rui L.

doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2010.04.004

Cited by 91 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If the filter entraps a thrombus, it can be left in place until it resolves (5). Placement and retrieval is generally simpler than with other types of filters (3,12). However, the indwelling time for most retrievable filters is relatively short (most recommendations are to remove them within 12 days); thus, the explantation rate is low and many of them become permanent (11).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mortality rate of PEs is especially high in trauma patients, as these tend to develop latent PEs. Although the mortality associated with PEs has been greatly reduced by the application of inferior vena cava filters (VCFs) (3,4), permanent VCF implantation is associated with long-term complications such as recurrent deep vein thrombosis (DVT), filter dislocation, migration, and rupture (5)(6)(7)(8). Thus, for patients with a long life expectancy and transient risk for venous thromboembolism, nonpermanent VCF placement is preferred (6).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tempofilter II implantation in patients with lower extremity fractures and proximal deep vein thrombosis

Jia

Liu²,

Tian³

et al. 2014

Diagn Interv Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ORIGINAL ARTICLE PURPOSE We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of Tempofilter II (B. Braun, Melsungen, Germany) implantation to prevent pulmonary embolism in patients with lower-extremity fractures and proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT). MATERIALS AND METHODSThe records of patients with lower limb fractures and proximal DVT who were implanted with Tempofilter II devices from May 2004 to August 2009 were reviewed. Data collected included success rate, occurrence of pulmonary embolism, retrieval rate, and complications. RESULTS A total of 176 eligible patients, including 129 males (73.3%) and 47 females (26.7%) with a median age of 42.0 years (interquartile range [IQR], 34.0-52.0 years) were included in the study. Filters were successfully implanted in 174 patients (98.9%). One patient experienced a pulmonary embolism after implantation and died. Filters were removed without complications in all other patients. Median filter implantation time was 27 days (IQR, 25.0-29.0 days). Visible organized thrombi were present on the surface of 144 (82.8%) of filters after removal, and the diameter of most thrombi (n=124) ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 cm. Filters migrated <2 cm in 104 patients (59.8%) and ≥2 cm in five patients (2.9%). In these five cases, three filters migrated into the right atrium and two migrated to the orifice of the renal veins. CONCLUSIONTempofilter II is safe and may be useful in cases of lower extremity fracture with proximal DVT for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. The filter is easily placed and retrieved, and associated with minimal complications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Tempofilter II implantation in patients with lower extremity fractures and proximal deep vein thrombosis

Jia

Liu²,

Tian³

et al. 2014

Diagn Interv Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Its retrieval hook is caudal, warranting a femoral snare approach. These devices are inserted and removed safely with a high degree of technical success [2,5,50,52,[57][58][59][60][61].…”

Section: Ivc Filters and Dwell Timesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As filter retrieval becomes less of an ''optional'' event, dedicated physician and practice mechanisms to enhance retrieval rates will be required. Current published reports describe a broad range of retrieval rates from 1.0 to 40.5% [3,[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]. Minocha et al showed the value of this type of a proactive program: Once implemented, IVC retrieval rates increased from 29 to 60% [56].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advanced Techniques for Removal of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters

Iliescu

Haskal

2011

Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol

Self Cite

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have proven valuable for the prevention of primary or recurrent pulmonary embolism in selected patients with or at high risk for venous thromboembolic disease. Their use has become commonplace, and the numbers implanted increase annually. During the last 3 years, in the United States, the percentage of annually placed optional filters, i.e., filters than can remain as permanent filters or potentially be retrieved, has consistently exceeded that of permanent filters. In parallel, the complications of long-or short-term filtration have become increasingly evident to physicians, regulatory agencies, and the public. Most filter removals are uneventful, with a high degree of success. When routine filter-retrieval techniques prove unsuccessful, progressively more advanced tools and skill sets must be used to enhance filter-retrieval success. These techniques should be used with caution to avoid damage to the filter or cava during IVC retrieval. This review describes the complex techniques for filter retrieval, including use of additional snares, guidewires, angioplasty balloons, and mechanical and thermal approaches as well as illustrates their specific application.

show abstract

“…In most clinical scenarios anticoagulation is the preferred method of pulmonary embolism prevention. However, when anticoagulation is contraindicated [2], transvenous IVC filter placement is the recommended standard of care [6]. Although protrusion of IVC filter struts outside of the IVC lumen has been reported in up to 40% of cases [7], these cases are often asymptomatic and, typically, IVC filter insertion is considered a low-risk procedure with a major complication risk of only 0.3%.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inferior Vena Cava Filter Fragmentation, Embolization and Erosion through the Vessel Wall: An Unusual Complication

Cisternino¹

2014

J Vasc Med Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pulmonary embolism is a frequently fatal form of venous thromboembolism that is often avoided with the placement of an Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filter. Although these filters have low complication rates, filter migration, caval occlusion, and filter fragmentation can occur. Filter strut perforation of the IVC lumen is a frequent occurrence and is typically asymptomatic. We report a case of filter fragmentation with subsequent strut migration and perforation, extending out of the IVC lumen and penetrating into the surrounding vascular and connective tissues as well as into the inferomedial aspect of the left lower lung lobe and the right atrium causing significant abdominal and back pain. The patient underwent operative retrieval of the filter.

show abstract

The Safety and Effectiveness of the Retrievable Option Inferior Vena Cava Filter: A United States Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study

Cited by 91 publications

References 15 publications

Tempofilter II implantation in patients with lower extremity fractures and proximal deep vein thrombosis

Tempofilter II implantation in patients with lower extremity fractures and proximal deep vein thrombosis

Advanced Techniques for Removal of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters

Inferior Vena Cava Filter Fragmentation, Embolization and Erosion through the Vessel Wall: An Unusual Complication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About