BACKGROUND: Vena cava filter (VCF) use in the United States has increased dramatically with prophylactic indications for placement and the availability of low-profile retrievable devices, which are overtaking the filter market. We surveyed the practice patterns of a large group of vascular surgeons from a regional vascular surgery society to see whether they mirrored current national trends. METHODS: A 17-question online VCF survey was offered to all members of the Southern Association of Vascular Surgery. The responses were analyzed using the χ(2) goodness of fit tests. RESULTS: Of the 276 members surveyed, 126 (46%) responded, with 118 (93%) indicating that they placed filters during their practice. Highly significant differences were identified with each question (at least P < 0.002). Regarding the inferior vena cava, the preferred permanent filters were the Greenfield (31%), the TrapEase (15%), the Vena Tech (5%), and a variety of retrievable devices (49%). Fifty percent of the respondents placed retrievable filters selectively; 26% always placed them; and 24% never did. Filters were placed for prophylactic indications <50% of the time by 63% of the respondents. Overall, retrievable filters (when not used as permanent filters) were removed <25% of the time by 64% of the respondents and <50% of the time by 78% of the respondents. The femoral vein was the preferred access site for 84% of the respondents. Major complications were few but included filter migration to the atrium (one), atrial perforation (one), abdominal pain requiring surgical filter removal (two), inferior vena cava thrombosis (12 vena cava thrombosis--4 due to TrapEase filters), strut fracture with embolization to heart or lungs (three Bard retrievable filters), and severe tilting precluding percutaneous retrieval and protection from pulmonary emboli (8 filters with severe tilt--7 of which were Bard). Of the respondents, 59% had never placed a superior vena cava filter, and 28% had placed five or fewer. CONCLUSIONS: Although VCF insertion overall appears safe, some complications are specific to biconical and certain retrievable filters. Given the low removal rate and lack of long-term experience with retrievable filters, routine use of these devices as permanent filters should be questioned. If used on a temporary basis, there should be a plan for filter removal at the time of implantation.
BACKGROUND: Vena cava filter (VCF) use in the United States has increased dramatically with prophylactic indications for placement and the availability of low-profile retrievable devices, which are overtaking the filter market. We surveyed the practice patterns of a large group of vascular surgeons from a regional vascular surgery society to see whether they mirrored current national trends. METHODS: A 17-question online VCF survey was offered to all members of the Southern Association of Vascular Surgery. The responses were analyzed using the χ(2) goodness of fit tests. RESULTS: Of the 276 members surveyed, 126 (46%) responded, with 118 (93%) indicating that they placed filters during their practice. Highly significant differences were identified with each question (at least P < 0.002). Regarding the inferior vena cava, the preferred permanent filters were the Greenfield (31%), the TrapEase (15%), the Vena Tech (5%), and a variety of retrievable devices (49%). Fifty percent of the respondents placed retrievable filters selectively; 26% always placed them; and 24% never did. Filters were placed for prophylactic indications <50% of the time by 63% of the respondents. Overall, retrievable filters (when not used as permanent filters) were removed <25% of the time by 64% of the respondents and <50% of the time by 78% of the respondents. The femoral vein was the preferred access site for 84% of the respondents. Major complications were few but included filter migration to the atrium (one), atrial perforation (one), abdominal pain requiring surgical filter removal (two), inferior vena cava thrombosis (12 vena cava thrombosis--4 due to TrapEase filters), strut fracture with embolization to heart or lungs (three Bard retrievable filters), and severe tilting precluding percutaneous retrieval and protection from pulmonary emboli (8 filters with severe tilt--7 of which were Bard). Of the respondents, 59% had never placed a superior vena cava filter, and 28% had placed five or fewer. CONCLUSIONS: Although VCF insertion overall appears safe, some complications are specific to biconical and certain retrievable filters. Given the low removal rate and lack of long-term experience with retrievable filters, routine use of these devices as permanent filters should be questioned. If used on a temporary basis, there should be a plan for filter removal at the time of implantation.