PURPOSE: Because many retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are placed without ever being removed, placement of a retrievable device that is not removed incurs greater technical cost for the institution than a cheaper permanent filter (PF), with no clinical benefit for the patient and no additional professional or technical revenue for the interventional radiologist and institution. The purposes of this study are to identify patient characteristics associated with lack of removal of a retrievable filter (RF) and to develop a cost-effective strategy for placement of a retrievable IVC filter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of 160 consecutive patients who underwent IVC filter placement with or without removal in our interventional radiology (IR) unit over a period of 31 months was performed. Patient characteristics were identified that were associated with lack of removal of retrievable IVC filters, and the cost savings were calculated in the event that a PF had been substituted for an RF in these patients. RESULTS: A total of 160 consecutive IVC filters were placed during the study period. Of these, 42 (26%) were PFs and 118 (74%) were RFs. During the study period, only 27 of the 118 RFs (23%) were subsequently removed. Factors associated with lack of removal of an RF included patient age (P = .003), presence of ongoing malignancy (P = .04), and indication for filter placement (P = .01). Retrospectively, the use of retrievable devices only in the presence of two of the three selection criteria (ie, age <65 years, no ongoing malignancy, prophylactic indication) would have resulted in a net incremental benefit of $59,562 for the IR service. CONCLUSIONS: The preferential use of retrievable versus permanent devices for filter placement is financially advantageous for an IR unit only if at least 41% of them are eventually removed. The use of clinical criteria to select device type allows significant cost savings.
PURPOSE: Because many retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are placed without ever being removed, placement of a retrievable device that is not removed incurs greater technical cost for the institution than a cheaper permanent filter (PF), with no clinical benefit for the patient and no additional professional or technical revenue for the interventional radiologist and institution. The purposes of this study are to identify patient characteristics associated with lack of removal of a retrievable filter (RF) and to develop a cost-effective strategy for placement of a retrievable IVC filter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of 160 consecutive patients who underwent IVC filter placement with or without removal in our interventional radiology (IR) unit over a period of 31 months was performed. Patient characteristics were identified that were associated with lack of removal of retrievable IVC filters, and the cost savings were calculated in the event that a PF had been substituted for an RF in these patients. RESULTS: A total of 160 consecutive IVC filters were placed during the study period. Of these, 42 (26%) were PFs and 118 (74%) were RFs. During the study period, only 27 of the 118 RFs (23%) were subsequently removed. Factors associated with lack of removal of an RF included patient age (P = .003), presence of ongoing malignancy (P = .04), and indication for filter placement (P = .01). Retrospectively, the use of retrievable devices only in the presence of two of the three selection criteria (ie, age <65 years, no ongoing malignancy, prophylactic indication) would have resulted in a net incremental benefit of $59,562 for the IR service. CONCLUSIONS: The preferential use of retrievable versus permanent devices for filter placement is financially advantageous for an IR unit only if at least 41% of them are eventually removed. The use of clinical criteria to select device type allows significant cost savings.
Authors: Mark Sheehan; Kristopher Coppin; Cormac O'Brien; Andrew McGrath; Mark Given; Aoife Keeling; Michael J Lee Journal: CVIR Endovasc Date: 2022-03-05