PURPOSE: To report and analyze the indications, procedural success, and complications of retrievable inferior vena cava filters (rIVCF) placement and to identify parameters that influence retrieval attempt and failure. METHODS: Between January 2005 and December 2010, a total of 200 patients (80 men, median age 67 years, range 11-95 years) received a rIVCF with the clinical possibility that it could be removed. All patients with rIVCF were prospectively entered into a database and followed until retrieval or a decision not to retrieve the filter was made. A retrospective analysis of this database was performed. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of patients had an accepted indication for filter placement; 39% of patients had a relative indication. There was a tendency toward a higher retrieval rate in patients with relative indications (40% vs. 55%, P = 0.076). Filter placement was technically successful in all patients, with no procedure-related mortality. The retrieval rate was 53%. Patient age of >80 years (odds ratio [OR] 0.056, P > 0.0001) and presence of malignancy (OR 0.303, P = 0.003) was associated with a significantly reduced probability for attempted retrieval. Retrieval failure occurred in 7% (6 of 91) of all retrieval attempts. A time interval of > 90 days between implantation and attempted retrieval was associated with retrieval failure (OR 19.8, P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Patient age >80 years and a history of malignancy are predictors of a reduced probability for retrieval attempt. The rate of retrieval failure is low and seems to be associated with a time interval of >90 days between filter placement and retrieval.
PURPOSE: To report and analyze the indications, procedural success, and complications of retrievable inferior vena cava filters (rIVCF) placement and to identify parameters that influence retrieval attempt and failure. METHODS: Between January 2005 and December 2010, a total of 200 patients (80 men, median age 67 years, range 11-95 years) received a rIVCF with the clinical possibility that it could be removed. All patients with rIVCF were prospectively entered into a database and followed until retrieval or a decision not to retrieve the filter was made. A retrospective analysis of this database was performed. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of patients had an accepted indication for filter placement; 39% of patients had a relative indication. There was a tendency toward a higher retrieval rate in patients with relative indications (40% vs. 55%, P = 0.076). Filter placement was technically successful in all patients, with no procedure-related mortality. The retrieval rate was 53%. Patient age of >80 years (odds ratio [OR] 0.056, P > 0.0001) and presence of malignancy (OR 0.303, P = 0.003) was associated with a significantly reduced probability for attempted retrieval. Retrieval failure occurred in 7% (6 of 91) of all retrieval attempts. A time interval of > 90 days between implantation and attempted retrieval was associated with retrieval failure (OR 19.8, P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS:Patient age >80 years and a history of malignancy are predictors of a reduced probability for retrieval attempt. The rate of retrieval failure is low and seems to be associated with a time interval of >90 days between filter placement and retrieval.