Procedural and indwelling complications with inferior vena cava filters: frequency, etiology, and management.
ABSTRACT: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are commonly used in select high-risk patients for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. Potentially serious complications can arise from the use of IVC filters, including thrombosis of the filter itself and filter fragment embolization. This article discusses the utility of IVC filters and reviews the management of two cases of filter-related complications.
Project description:Annually, approximately 65,000 inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are placed in the United States (Ahmed et al., J Am Coll Radiol 15:1553-1557, 2018). Approximately 35% of filters are eventually retrieved (Angel et al., J Vasc Interv Radiol 22: 1522-1530 e1523, 2011). Complications during filter retrieval depend heavily on technique and filter position. In this paper, we review risk factors and incidence of complications during IVC filter removal. We also discuss ways these complications could be avoided and the appropriate management if they occur.
Project description:Appropriate placement of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter necessitates imaging of the renal veins because when an IVC filter is deployed its tip should be at or below the inferior aspect of the inferiormost renal vein. Traditionally, imaging during placement of IVC filters has been with conventional cavography and fluoroscopy. Recently, intravascular ultrasound has been used for the same purpose but with additional expense. Morbidly obese patients often exceed the weight limit of fluoroscopy tables. In addition, short obese patients are at risk of falling from narrow fluoroscopy tables. For such patients, computed tomography (CT) guidance is a viable alternative to conventional fluoroscopic guidance. IVC placement was performed in the CT suite for two obese patients who exceeded the weight limits of the available fluoroscopy tables. In one case, a Vena-Tech filter (Braun Medical, Melsungen, Germany) was placed using CT fluoroscopy. In the second case, a Recovery (Bard, Murray Hill, NJ) filter was placed using intermittent limited z-axis scanning. In the first case, the filter was placed below the level of the renal veins and above the confluence of the iliac veins, which is acceptable placement. In the second case, with refinement of technique, the filter tip was placed less than 1 cm below the inferiormost renal vein, which is considered optimal placement. CT of the IVC precisely images the renal veins and can characterize their number and their confluence with the IVC. CT guidance is a viable alternative to fluoroscopic guidance for the placement of IVC filters in morbidly obese patients.
Project description:Our study objective was to describe the frequency, indications, and outcomes after inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement in a population-based sample of residents of the Worcester, Massachusetts, metropolitan area who had been diagnosed as having acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) in 1999, 2001, and 2003.A retrospective chart review of inpatient and outpatient medical records was conducted. Recorded indication(s) for IVC filter placement was determined among a subset of cases from 3 Worcester tertiary care hospitals. Three thrombosis specialists assessed the appropriateness of IVC filter placement.Of 1547 greater Worcester residents with validated acute VTE and without a prior IVC filter, 203 (13.1%) had an IVC filter placed after acute VTE. Patients with an IVC filter were older, had more comorbidities, and had a higher mortality rate during 3 years of follow-up. There was unanimous agreement by panel members that the use of an IVC filter was appropriate in 51% of cases and inappropriate in 26% of cases, with no consensus in the remaining 23%.In this community-based study, IVC filters were frequently used in the treatment of patients with acute VTE. Placement was deemed to be appropriate in approximately 50% of the patients but was not appropriate or debatable in the remaining cases. Given the increasing use of IVC filters, prospective studies are clearly needed to better define the indications for, and efficacy of, IVC filter placement.
Project description:The role of inferior vena cava filter (IVC) filters for prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE) is controversial. This study evaluated outcomes of IVC filter placement in a managed care population. This retrospective cohort study evaluated data for individuals with Humana healthcare coverage 2013-2014. The study population included 435 recipients of prophylactic IVC filters, 4376 recipients of therapeutic filters, and two control groups, each matched to filter recipients. Patients were followed for up to 2 years. Post-index anticoagulant use, mortality, filter removal, device-related complications, and all-cause utilization. Adjusted regression analyses showed a positive association between filter placement and anticoagulant use at 3 months: odds ratio (ORs) 3.403 (95% CI 1.912-6.059), prophylactic; OR, 1.356 (95% CI 1.164-1.58), therapeutic. Filters were removed in 15.67% of prophylactic and 5.69% of therapeutic filter cases. Complication rates were higher with prophylactic procedures than with therapeutic procedures and typically exceeded 2% in the prophylactic group. Each form of filter placement was associated with increases in all-cause hospitalization (regression coefficient 0.295 [95% CI 0.093-0.498], prophylactic; 0.673 [95% CI 0.547-0.798], therapeutic) and readmissions (OR 2.444 [95% CI 1.298-4.602], prophylactic; 2.074 [95% CI 1.644-2.616], therapeutic). IVC filter placement in this managed care population was associated with increased use of anticoagulants and greater healthcare utilization compared to controls, low rates of retrieval, and notable rates of device-related complications, with effects especially pronounced in assessments of prophylactic filters. These findings underscore the need for appropriate use of IVC filters.
Project description:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality. This is especially true for hospitalized patients. Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the leading preventable cause of in-hospital mortality. The preferred method of both treatment and prophylaxis for VTE is anticoagulation. However, in a subset of patients, anticoagulation therapy is contraindicated or ineffective, and these patients often receive an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter. The sole purpose of an IVC filter is prevention of clinically significant PE. IVC filter usage has increased every year, most recently due to the availability of retrievable devices and a relaxation of thresholds for placement. Much of this recent growth has occurred in the trauma patient population given the high potential for VTE and frequent contraindication to anticoagulation. Retrievable filters, which strive to offer the benefits of permanent filters without time-sensitive complications, come with a new set of challenges including methods for filter follow-up and retrieval.
Project description:Therapeutic and prophylactic inferior vena cava (IVC) filters should be placed based on currently accepted indications to prevent a fatal pulmonary embolism (PE). The protective effect of filters is offset by the potential for lower extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT), caval thrombosis, and possible otherwise unnecessary life-long anticoagulation (AC). The duration of treatment for most DVTs or PEs is 3 to 6 months of AC/filter. Filters should be retrieved when duration of treatment for a DVT/PE has been met, the risk of a PE is no longer high, and/or there is no longer a contraindication to AC. An effective system that leads to improving the retrieval rate of filters must include education of the patient, a tracking system to minimize patient lost to follow-up, and dedicated personnel to oversee the process. If these goals are accomplished, interventionalists can help decrease the incidence of a fatal PE during the high-risk period, and also decrease the risk of a DVT or the use of otherwise unnecessary life-long AC in subsequent years. Currently, there is much room for improvement in the frequency that IVCF patients are systematically followed and filters are retrieved. The principles discussed in this report will be helpful in this process.
Project description:Inferior vena cava filters have been placed in patients for decades for protection against pulmonary embolism. The widespread use of filters has dramatically increased owing at least in part to the approval of retrievable vena cava filters. Retrievable filters have the potential to protect against pulmonary embolism and then be retrieved once no longer needed to avoid potential long-term complications. There are several retrievable vena cava filters available for use. This article discusses the different filter designs as well as the published data on these available filters. When selecting a filter for use, it is important to consider the potential short-term complications and the filters' window for retrieval. Understanding potential long-term complications is also critical, as these devices are approved for permanent placement and many filters are not retrieved. Finally, this article will address research into new designs that may be the future of vena cava filtration.
Project description:Patients with inferior vena cava (IVC) filters - particularly permanent filters - are at increased risk for recurrent deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Judicious use of IVC filters, as well as the prompt retrieval of temporary IVC filters, substantially reduces the risk of IVC thrombosis.
Project description:Purpose:To compare filter tilt and filter jumping during Option inferior vena cava (IVC) filter deployment with 3 different wires techniques using a 3-dimensional (3D) printing vena cava phantom. Materials and methods:An IVC 3D printed vena cava phantom was made from a healthy young male's computed tomographic data. Option IVC filters were deployed with 3 different wires: i) original push wire, ii) hydrophilic stiff wire, and iii) bent stiff wire. Right internal jugular and right femoral access were used 5 times with each wire. Filter tilt angle, tilt ratio, jumping, and tip abutment to the IVC wall were analyzed. Results:The transfemoral approach with original push wire had significantly higher tilt angle than did the transjugular approach (6.1? ± 1.9 vs. 3.5? ± 1.3, p = 0.04). Mean tilt ratio was significantly lower with the bent wire with transfemoral access (0.49 ± 0.13 vs. 0.78 ± 0.18 [original push-wire] and 0.67 ± 0.08 [stiff wire], p = 0.019). The ratio was lower also with original push wire with transjugular access (0.34 ± 0.19 vs. 0.57 ±0.11 [stiff wire] and 0.58 ±0.17 [bent wire], p = 0.045). Filter jumping occurred more often with the transjugular approach with original push wire than with stiff or bent-wire delivery. Filter tip abutment to the IVC wall occurred only with the transfemoral approach. Conclusions:Bent wire with transfemoral access and original push wire with transjugular access had lower filter tilt ratio at Option IVC filter deployment. However, filter jumping was common using the original push wire with transjugular access.
Project description:The Sentry inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is designed to provide temporary protection against pulmonary embolism (PE) during transient high-risk periods and then to bioconvert after 60 days after implantation. At the time of bioconversion, the device's nitinol arms retract from the filtering position into the caval wall. Subsequently, the stable stent-like nitinol frame is endothelialized. The Sentry bioconvertible IVC filter has been evaluated in a multicenter investigational-device-exemption pivotal trial (NCT01975090) of 129 patients with documented deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or PE, or at temporary risk of developing DVT or PE, and with contraindications to anticoagulation. Successful filter conversion was observed in 95.7% of patients at 6 months (110/115) and 96.4% at 12 months (106/110). Through 12 months, there were no cases of symptomatic PE. The rationale for development of the Sentry bioconvertible device includes the following considerations: (1) the period of highest risk of PE for the vast majority of patients occurs within the first 60 days after an index event, with most of the PEs occurring in the first 30 days; (2) the design of retrievable IVC filters to support their removal after a transitory high-PE-risk period has, in practice, been associated with insecure filter dynamics and time-dependent complications including tilting, fracture, embolization, migration, and IVC perforation; (3) most retrievable IVC filters are placed for temporary protection, but for a variety of reasons they are not removed in any more than half of implanted patients, and when removal is attempted, the procedure is not always successful even with advanced techniques; and (4) analysis of Medicare hospital data suggests that payment for the retrieval procedure does not routinely compensate for expense. The Sentry device is not intended for removal after bioconversion. In initial clinical use, complications have been limited. Long-term results for the Sentry bioconvertible IVC filter are anticipated soon.