PURPOSE: To evaluate the current practice of temporary vena cava filter placement and its complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicenter registry was conducted from May 1995 until May 1997 using a standardized questionnaire. One hundred eighty-eight patients were evaluated. Patient characteristics, filter indications, filter characteristics, and complications were registered. RESULTS: Deep vein thrombosis was proven in 95.2% of the patients. Main filter indication was thrombolysis therapy (53.1%). Average filter time was 5.4 days. An Antheor filter was inserted in 56.4%, a Guenther filter in 26.6%, and a Prolyser filter in 17.%. Transfemoral filter implantation was slightly preferred (54.8%). Four patients died of pulmonary embolism (PE) during filter protection. Major filter problems were filter thrombosis (16%) and filter dislocation (4.8%). When thrombus was found in or at the filter before explantation, additional thrombolysis was performed in 16.7%, additional filter implantation in 10%, and thrombus aspiration in 6.7%; 4.8% of filters were replaced with permanent filters. DISCUSSION: Temporary vena cava filters are placed to prevent PE in a defined patient population. Despite their presence, PEs still occur in a small percentage. Problems of filter thrombosis and dislocation have to be solved. CONCLUSION: The results of this multicenter registry support the need for innovative filter design, as well as a randomized, prospective study.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the current practice of temporary vena cava filter placement and its complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicenter registry was conducted from May 1995 until May 1997 using a standardized questionnaire. One hundred eighty-eight patients were evaluated. Patient characteristics, filter indications, filter characteristics, and complications were registered. RESULTS: Deep vein thrombosis was proven in 95.2% of the patients. Main filter indication was thrombolysis therapy (53.1%). Average filter time was 5.4 days. An Antheor filter was inserted in 56.4%, a Guenther filter in 26.6%, and a Prolyser filter in 17.%. Transfemoral filter implantation was slightly preferred (54.8%). Four patients died of pulmonary embolism (PE) during filter protection. Major filter problems were filter thrombosis (16%) and filter dislocation (4.8%). When thrombus was found in or at the filter before explantation, additional thrombolysis was performed in 16.7%, additional filter implantation in 10%, and thrombus aspiration in 6.7%; 4.8% of filters were replaced with permanent filters. DISCUSSION: Temporary vena cava filters are placed to prevent PE in a defined patient population. Despite their presence, PEs still occur in a small percentage. Problems of filter thrombosis and dislocation have to be solved. CONCLUSION: The results of this multicenter registry support the need for innovative filter design, as well as a randomized, prospective study.