PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Celect inferior vena cava (IVC) filter during implantation, retrieval, and short-term follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The clinical data of 73 patients (46 men; age range, 22-89 years) who had a Celect IVC filter implanted between August 2007 and June 2008 were reviewed. Twenty-one (28.8%) presented with pulmonary embolism (PE), 15 (20.54%) with deep vein thrombosis (DVT), 12 (16.4%) with both, and the rest (34.26%) with other symptoms. Indications for filter placement were contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 38; 52%), prophylaxis/added protection (n = 22; 30%), failure of anticoagulation (n = 11; 15%), and complications of anticoagulation (n = 2; 3%). Filters were placed in the infrarenal (n = 71) or suprarenal (n = 2) IVC. Follow-up data were reviewed for filter-related complications and recurrent PE. RESULTS: All filters were successfully deployed. Immediately after fluoroscopy-guided filter deployment in 61 patients, four filters (6.5%) showed significant tilt. During follow-up (mean, 68 days +/- 73), three patients developed symptoms of PE after filter placement; however, computed tomographic (CT) pulmonary angiography demonstrated new PE in only two. Imaging follow-up with radiography (n = 32), CT (n = 11), and/or angiography (n = 4) in 47 patients (at a mean of 62 days +/- 75) showed no filter migration. Follow-up abdominal CT (at a mean of 69 days +/- 58) was available in 18 patients and demonstrated filter-related problems in seven (39%). These included penetration of filter legs in four and fracture/migration of filter components in one. Fourteen filters were successfully retrieved after a median period of 84 days. CONCLUSIONS: The Celect IVC filter can be safely placed but is related to a high incidence of caval filter leg penetration. Symptomatic PE after filter placement confirmed by CT occurred in 2.8% of patients.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Celect inferior vena cava (IVC) filter during implantation, retrieval, and short-term follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The clinical data of 73 patients (46 men; age range, 22-89 years) who had a Celect IVC filter implanted between August 2007 and June 2008 were reviewed. Twenty-one (28.8%) presented with pulmonary embolism (PE), 15 (20.54%) with deep vein thrombosis (DVT), 12 (16.4%) with both, and the rest (34.26%) with other symptoms. Indications for filter placement were contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 38; 52%), prophylaxis/added protection (n = 22; 30%), failure of anticoagulation (n = 11; 15%), and complications of anticoagulation (n = 2; 3%). Filters were placed in the infrarenal (n = 71) or suprarenal (n = 2) IVC. Follow-up data were reviewed for filter-related complications and recurrent PE. RESULTS: All filters were successfully deployed. Immediately after fluoroscopy-guided filter deployment in 61 patients, four filters (6.5%) showed significant tilt. During follow-up (mean, 68 days +/- 73), three patients developed symptoms of PE after filter placement; however, computed tomographic (CT) pulmonary angiography demonstrated new PE in only two. Imaging follow-up with radiography (n = 32), CT (n = 11), and/or angiography (n = 4) in 47 patients (at a mean of 62 days +/- 75) showed no filter migration. Follow-up abdominal CT (at a mean of 69 days +/- 58) was available in 18 patients and demonstrated filter-related problems in seven (39%). These included penetration of filter legs in four and fracture/migration of filter components in one. Fourteen filters were successfully retrieved after a median period of 84 days. CONCLUSIONS: The Celect IVC filter can be safely placed but is related to a high incidence of caval filter leg penetration. Symptomatic PE after filter placement confirmed by CT occurred in 2.8% of patients.