Literature DB >> 23180324

Safety and efficacy of the Gunther Tulip retrievable vena cava filter: midterm outcomes.

Eric K Hoffer1, Rebecca J Mueller, Marcus R Luciano, Nicole N Lee, Anne T Michaels, John M Gemery.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate of the medium-term integrity, efficacy, and complication rate associated with the Gunther Tulip vena cava filter.
METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of 369 consecutive patients who had infrarenal Gunther Tulip inferior vena cava filters placed over a 5-year period. The mean patient age was 61.8 years, and 59% were men. Venous thromboembolic disease and a contraindication to or complication of anticoagulation were the indications for filter placement in 86% of patients; 14% were placed for prophylaxis in patients with a mean of 2.3 risk factors. Follow-up was obtained by review of medical and radiologic records.
RESULTS: Mean clinical follow-up was 780 days. New or recurrent pulmonary embolus occurred in 12 patients (3.3%). New or recurrent deep-vein thrombosis occurred in 53 patients (14.4%). There were no symptomatic fractures, migrations, or caval perforations. Imaging follow-up in 287 patients (77.8%) at a mean of 731 days revealed a single (0.3%) asymptomatic fracture, migration greater than 2 cm in 36 patients (12.5%), and no case of embolization. Of 122 patients with CT scans, asymptomatic perforations were identified in 53 patients (43.4%) at a mean 757 days.
CONCLUSION: The Gunther Tulip filter was safe and effective at 2-year follow-up. Complication rates were similar to those reported for permanent inferior vena cava filters.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23180324     DOI: 10.1007/s00270-012-0517-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol        ISSN: 0174-1551            Impact factor:   2.740


  5 in total

Review 1.  Procedural and indwelling complications with inferior vena cava filters: frequency, etiology, and management.

Authors:  Lazar Milovanovic; Sean A Kennedy; Mehran Midia
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.513

Review 2.  Evidence-Based Evaluation of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Complications Based on Filter Type.

Authors:  Steven E Deso; Ibrahim A Idakoji; William T Kuo
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.513

Review 3.  A Critical Review of Available Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters and Future Directions.

Authors:  Jennifer P Montgomery; John A Kaufman
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.513

4.  Multicenter investigation of the incidence of inferior vena cava filter fracture.

Authors:  Jun Koizumi; Takuya Hara; Tatsuya Sekiguchi; Tamaki Ichikawa; Hiroyuki Tajima; Naoko Takenoshita; Masato Tanikake; Yohsuke Suyama; Tatsumi Kaji; Kenichi Kato; Miyuki Sone; Yasuaki Arai; Hiroshi Anai; Kimihiko Kichikawa; Hiroyuki Fujieda; Toshiya Nishibe; Norikazu Yamada; Mashio Nakamura; Takeshi Nakano; Takeyoshi Kunieda; Takayuki Kuriyama; Tsuneaki Sugimoto; Morimasa Takayama; Takao Kobayashi; Shinya Goto; Minoru Kanazawa; Masaaki Itou; Kunio Shirato
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2018-08-14       Impact factor: 2.374

5.  Should We Remove the Retrievable Cook Celect Inferior Vena Cava Filter? Eight Years of Experience at a Single Center.

Authors:  Joohyung Son; Miju Bae; Sung Woon Chung; Chung Won Lee; Up Huh; Seunghwan Song
Journal:  Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2017-12-05
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.