OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare our recent clinical experience with temporary inferior vena cava (IVC) filters (TF) and retrievable IVC filters (RF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who received TF or RF implantation between October 2002 and May 2009 were studied. The early clinical outcomes between the 2 groups were compared. RESULTS: Nonpermanent IVC filters were placed in 119 patients (34 in TF and 85 in RF). Retrieval of RF and removal of TF were successful in 98.7% and 100%, respectively. The incidence of filter-related complications for TF was significantly higher than for RF (26.5% vs 3.5%; P = .0004). However, no symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) was observed during filter placement. CONCLUSION: TF and RF provided similar protection from PE. We prefer RF because they can be left in permanently if it is impossible to remove or retrieve the filter for some reason.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare our recent clinical experience with temporary inferior vena cava (IVC) filters (TF) and retrievable IVC filters (RF). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients who received TF or RF implantation between October 2002 and May 2009 were studied. The early clinical outcomes between the 2 groups were compared. RESULTS: Nonpermanent IVC filters were placed in 119 patients (34 in TF and 85 in RF). Retrieval of RF and removal of TF were successful in 98.7% and 100%, respectively. The incidence of filter-related complications for TF was significantly higher than for RF (26.5% vs 3.5%; P = .0004). However, no symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) was observed during filter placement. CONCLUSION: TF and RF provided similar protection from PE. We prefer RF because they can be left in permanently if it is impossible to remove or retrieve the filter for some reason.