Case report on the non-operative management of a retrievable inferior vena cava filter perforating the duodenum.
ABSTRACT: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) continues to be a significant source of morbidity for surgical patients. Placement of a retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is used when patients have contraindications to anticoagulation or recurrent pulmonary embolism despite therapeutic anticoagulation. Although retrievable IVC filters are often used, they carry a unique set of risks.A 67-year-old man presents to the Emergency Room (ER) following large volume melena and complaining of syncope. One year prior, the patient had been diagnosed with Glioblastoma multiforme, for which he underwent a craniotomy with near-total resection of the mass. He subsequently developed a deep vein thrombosis and underwent placement of a retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter. Computerized tomography (CT) and esophagogastroduodenoscopy showed duodenal perforation by the retrievable IVC filter. The filter was successfully retrieved through an endovascular approach.Retrievable IVC filter placement is the preferred method of pulmonary embolism prevention in patients with significant risk for bleeding. Duodenal perforation by a retrievable IVC filter is a rare and serious complication. It is usually managed surgically, but can also be managed non-operatively.For patients with significant comorbidities or patients who are poor surgical candidates, non-operative management with close monitoring can serve as an initial approach to the patient with a caval enteric perforation secondary to a retrievable IVC filter.
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:<h4>Background</h4>This article describes a rare case of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter perforation into the duodenum in a patient presenting with abdominal pain.<h4>Case report</h4>A 55 year old woman presented with abdominal pain four years after an IVC filter placement. Workup demonstrated an IVC filter strut perforating the duodenum. The filter was removed via laparotomy, the duodenum was closed primarily, and the IVC was repaired. The patient was discharged home on post-operative day five and is doing well.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Most extraluminal perforations of IVC filter struts are asymptomatic. Rare filter associated duodenal perforations may present with non-specific abdominal symptoms. If no other diagnosis can be attributed to the patient's presentation, direct removal of the filter and repair of the duodenum are indicated.
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: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.
Project description:<h4>Introduction</h4> Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are commonly used in patients with venous thromboembolism to prevent fatal pulmonary embolism, but the thrombosis risk increases after filter placement. Warfarin is a widely anticoagulant, but long-term monitoring and dose adjustments are required. Anticoagulation with rivaroxaban is more straightforward as it dose not require laboratory monitoring. This study compares the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban and warfarin as an in anticoagulation therapy for patients with IVC filter placement. <h4>Methods and analysis</h4> This is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. In total, 200 patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with IVC filter implantation from 10 hospitals will be recruited. The patients will be randomised to the experimental group (rivaroxaban) or the control group (nadroparin overlapped with warfarin). The primary outcomes include death of any cause, pulmonary embolism (PE)-related death, bleeding and recurrent PE/DVT. The secondary outcomes include the percentage of other vascular events, IVC filter retrieval failure and net clinical benefits. This study aims to provide reliable, verification for the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban antithrombotic therapy after IVC filter placement. <h4>Ethics and dissemination</h4> The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine (approval number: (2019) 295). The results will be disseminated through presentations at scientific conferences and publications in peer-reviewed journals <h4>Trial registration number</h4> NCT04066764.
Project description:Over the past decade, there has been a gradual evolution of the retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter, as the indications for caval filtration have expanded since the first such filters came into use. However, the particular design of retrievable or optional filters has introduced a subset of both symptomatic and asymptomatic device failures that have prompted a reassessment in the approach to patient selection as well as a new lexicon of technical considerations when considering retrieval. The Denali Vena Cava Filter (Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., Tempe, AZ) represents one of the latest filters to come to market that specifically addresses the various issues of its predecessors. While the body of published experience with this filter is still relatively sparse, the incidence of filter tilt, strut perforation, strut fracture, and filter migration appears acceptably low and the filters remain relatively easy to retrieve even after long dwell times.
Project description:Background Pulmonary embolus (PE) remains a leading etiology of maternal mortality in the developed world. Increasing utilization of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement currently includes pregnant patients. Case A 22-year-old woman at 27 weeks' gestation was diagnosed with Stage IV high-grade malignant B cell lymphoma following pathologic femur fracture. Significant risk factors for PE led to placement of primary prophylaxis IVC filter before cesarean delivery, open reduction and internal fixation of the fractured femur, and chemotherapy. Conclusion This case supports that primary prophylaxis placement of IVC filters in highly selected pregnant patients may assist in decreasing PE-associated maternal mortality.
Project description:Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are effective therapy to prevent pulmonary embolism in patients with contraindication to anticoagulation. However, IVC wall penetration by the filter struts is a common complication that can lead to symptoms specially when adjacent organs are impacted. This case report and video describe the wire loop technique for successful endovascular IVC filter retrieval in a patient with lower back pain caused by a spinal strut penetration. The patient's back pain resolved after filter retrieval and he remained stable on anticoagulation with no recurrence of venous thromboembolism.
Project description:Background: Previous observational studies suggest that inferior vena cava filter placement in pulmonary embolism patients complicated with congestive heart failure, mechanical ventilation, and shock may have a mortality benefit. We sought to analyze the survival benefits of inferior vena cava filter in pulmonary embolism patients complicated with acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure, shock, or requiring treatment with thrombolytics. Methods: This retrospective observational study used hospital discharge data from the National Inpatient Sample Data (NIS). ICD-9-CM coding was used to identify complicated pulmonary embolism patients (N?=?254,465) in NIS from 2002 to 2014, including the subgroups of acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure, shock, and thrombolytics. Inferior vena cava filter recipients were 1:1 propensity score-matched on age, sex, race, deep vein thrombosis, Elixhauser comorbidities, and other pulmonary embolism comorbidities (45 covariates) to non-inferior vena cava filter recipients in complicated pulmonary embolism patients and separately in each subgroup. Clinical outcomes were compared between the inferior vena cava filter group and the non-inferior vena cava filter group. Results: Mortality rate in complicated pulmonary embolism patients with inferior vena cava filter placement was lower (20.9% vs. 33%; NNT?=?8.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.91-8.69, E-value?=?2.53) and in the subgroups; acute myocardial infarction (17.9% vs. 30.1%; NNT?=?8.19, 95% CI 7.52-8.92, E-value?=?2.76), acute respiratory failure (19.5% vs. 29.7%; NNT?=?9.76, 95% CI 8.67-11.16, E-value?=?2.38), shock (30.7% vs. 47.1%; NNT?=?6.08, 95% CI 5.73-6.47, E-value?=?2.43), and with the use of thrombolytics (7% vs. 12.9 %; NNT 17.1, 95% CI 14.88-20.12, E-value?=?3.01) (p?<?0.001 for all). Conclusion: Inferior vena cava filter placement in pulmonary embolism complicated with acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure, shock, or requiring thrombolytic therapy was associated with reduced mortality.
Project description:Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are placed to prevent pulmonary embolism, however, some studies have suggested that IVC filters are associated with exacerbated risks of deep vein/IVC thrombosis in cancer patients. The purpose of this study is to determine if cancer patients develop higher than expected rates of venous thromboembolism complications after filter placement compared with noncancer patients.A retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who received filters (2002 to 2006) at Johns Hopkins was conducted. Exposures and outcomes were obtained by chart review. Relative risks (RR, 95% confidence interval [CI]) for outcomes in cancer versus noncancer patients were estimated using multistate models.The cohort included 702 patients-246 with cancer and 456 without cancer. Cancer patients were older, more likely to be white and have filters placed for contraindications to anticoagulation (P<0.01). The most common cancers were lung (11.8%) and colorectal (10.6%). Cancer patients had an increase in venous thromboembolism (RR 1.9 [95% CI, 1.1, 3.2]) due to more deep venous thrombosis/IVC thrombosis (RR 1.7 [95% CI, 1.0, 3.0]). Higher pulmonary embolism rates in cancer were not statistically significant (RR 2.2 [95% CI, 0.8, 5.8]).Cancer patients have elevated risks of thrombotic complications compared with noncancer patients; however, these risks are not higher than expected based on historical controls.