PURPOSE: This study evaluates clinical experience with the Recovery filter as a retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred seven Recovery filters were placed in 106 patients with an initial clinical indication for temporary caval filtration. Patients were followed up to assess filter efficacy, complications, eventual need for filter removal, time to retrieval, and ability to remove the filter. RESULTS: The patient cohort consisted of 62 men and 44 women with a mean age of 48 years (range, 18-90 y). Mean implantation time was 165 days. Indications for filter placement in patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE) included contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 33), complications of anticoagulation (n = 8), poor cardiopulmonary reserve (n = 6), large clot burden (n = 3), and PE while receiving anticoagulation (n = 1). Indications for filter placement in patients without proven PE or DVT included immobility after trauma (n = 35); recent intracranial hemorrhage, neurosurgery, or brain tumor (n = 18); and other surgical or invasive procedure (n = 3). Three patients (2.8%) had symptomatic PE after placement of the Recovery filter. No caval thromboses were detected. No symptomatic filter migrations occurred. Recovery filter removal was attempted in 15 of 106 patients (14%) at a mean of 150 days after placement. The Recovery filter was successfully retrieved in 14 of 15 patients (93%); one removal was unsuccessful at 210 days after placement. Ninety-two filters (87%) currently remain in place. CONCLUSIONS: Although all the filters were placed with the intention of being removed, a large percentage of filters were not retrieved. The Recovery filter was safe and effective in preventing PE when used as a retrievable IVC filter.
PURPOSE: This study evaluates clinical experience with the Recovery filter as a retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred seven Recovery filters were placed in 106 patients with an initial clinical indication for temporary caval filtration. Patients were followed up to assess filter efficacy, complications, eventual need for filter removal, time to retrieval, and ability to remove the filter. RESULTS: The patient cohort consisted of 62 men and 44 women with a mean age of 48 years (range, 18-90 y). Mean implantation time was 165 days. Indications for filter placement in patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE) included contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 33), complications of anticoagulation (n = 8), poor cardiopulmonary reserve (n = 6), large clot burden (n = 3), and PE while receiving anticoagulation (n = 1). Indications for filter placement in patients without proven PE or DVT included immobility after trauma (n = 35); recent intracranial hemorrhage, neurosurgery, or brain tumor (n = 18); and other surgical or invasive procedure (n = 3). Three patients (2.8%) had symptomatic PE after placement of the Recovery filter. No caval thromboses were detected. No symptomatic filter migrations occurred. Recovery filter removal was attempted in 15 of 106 patients (14%) at a mean of 150 days after placement. The Recovery filter was successfully retrieved in 14 of 15 patients (93%); one removal was unsuccessful at 210 days after placement. Ninety-two filters (87%) currently remain in place. CONCLUSIONS: Although all the filters were placed with the intention of being removed, a large percentage of filters were not retrieved. The Recovery filter was safe and effective in preventing PE when used as a retrievable IVC filter.