Vena cava filters and inferior vena cava thrombosis

Corriere, Matthew A.; Suave, Kenneth J.; Ayerdi, Juan; Craven, Brandon L.; Stafford, Jeanette M.; Geary, Randolph L.; Edwards, Matthew S.

doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2006.12.048

Cited by 40 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…35 Although rare, other serious complications of VCF placement have been described, including caval perforation, caval occlusion, migration, and embolism leading to cardiac tamponade. [36][37][38][39] Complications increase the cost of hospitalization, but the cost of VCF placement alone should also be considered. Average cost of the device is about $1100.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in vena caval interruption

Moore

Andrews

Craven

et al. 2010

Journal of Vascular Surgery

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in vena caval interruption

Moore

Andrews

Craven

et al. 2010

Journal of Vascular Surgery

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…15 Filter strut penetration also appears to be related to the outward radial force imposed by the filter, the sharpness of the filter barbs, and the luminal strength of the native IVC wall. An increase in filter span may also be a predictor of caval penetration.…”

Section: -13mentioning

confidence: 97%

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

“…The definition of filter thrombosis varies from study to study, as some authors included trapped non-occlusive clots, while others did not [4]. Since the purpose of the IVC filter is to inhibit VTE, a non-occlusive thrombus in the filter, in the absence of extension of the thrombosis substantially below the filter, should not be considered a complication [37]. Additionally, occluded IVCs and filters may subsequently recanalize, masking the true rate of thrombosis.…”

Section: Caval Thrombosismentioning

confidence: 99%

CT of inferior vena cava filters: normal presentations and potential complications

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With massive pulmonary embolism (PE) being the first or second leading cause of unexpected death in adults, protection against PE is critical in appropriately selected patients. The use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters has increased over the years, paralleling the increased detection of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and PE by improved and more available imaging techniques. The use of IVC filters has become very common as an alternative and/or as a supplement to anticoagulation, and these filters are often seen on routine abdominal CT, including in the emergency setting; therefore, knowledge of the normal spectrum of findings of IVC filters by the radiologist on CT is critical. Additionally, CT can be used specifically to identify complications related to IVC filters, and CT may alternatively demonstrate IVC filter-related problems which are not specifically anticipated clinically. With multiple available IVC filters on the US market, and even more available outside of the USA, it is important for the emergency and the general radiologist to recognize the different models and various appearances and positioning on CT, as well as their potential complications. These complications may be related to venous access, but also include thrombosis related to the filter, filter migration and penetration, and problems associated with filter deployment. With the increasing number of inferior vena cava filters placed and their duration within patients increasing over time, it is critical for emergency and other radiologists to be aware of these findings on CT.

show abstract

Vena cava filters and inferior vena cava thrombosis

Cited by 40 publications

References 32 publications

Trends in vena caval interruption

Trends in vena caval interruption

Caval Penetration by Inferior Vena Cava Filters

CT of inferior vena cava filters: normal presentations and potential complications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About