Raman Uberoi1, Charles Ross Tapping2,3, Nicholas Chalmers4, Victoria Allgar5. 1. Department of Radiology, Oxford University Hospitals, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK. raman.Uberoi@orh.nhs.uk. 2. Department of Radiology, Oxford University Hospitals, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK. 3. Department of Radiology, Oxford University Hospitals, Churchill Hospital, Old Road, Headington, OX37LJ, UK. 4. Department of Radiology, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK. 5. Hull and York Medical School, University of York, John Hughlings Jackson Building, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The British Society of Interventional Radiology (BSIR) Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filter Registry was produced to provide an audit of current United Kingdom (UK) practice regarding placement and retrieval of IVC filters to address concerns regarding their safety. METHODS: The IVC filter registry is a web-based registry, launched by the BSIR on behalf of its membership in October 2007. This report is based on prospectively collected data from October 2007 to March 2011. This report contains analysis of data on 1,434 IVC filter placements and 400 attempted retrievals performed at 68 UK centers. Data collected included patient demographics, insertion and retrieval data, and patient follow-up. RESULTS: IVC filter use in the majority of patients in the UK follows accepted CIRSE guidelines. Filter placement is usually a low-risk procedure, with a low major complication rate (<0.5 %). Cook Gunther Tulip (560 filters: 39 %) and Celect (359 filters: 25 %) filters constituted the majority of IVC filters inserted, with Bard G2, Recovery filters, Cordis Trapease, and OptEase constituting most of the remainder (445 filters: 31 %). More than 96 % of IVC filters deployed as intended. Operator inexperience (<25 procedure) was significantly associated with complications (p < 0.001). Of the IVC filters initially intended for temporary placement, retrieval was attempted in 78 %. Of these retrieval was technically successful in 83 %. Successful retrieval was significantly reduced for implants left in situ for >9 weeks versus those with a shorter dwell time. New lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or IVC thrombosis was reported in 88 patients following filter placement, there was no significant difference of incidence between filter types. CONCLUSIONS: This registry report provides interventional radiologists and clinicians with an improved understanding of the technical aspects of IVC filter placement to help improve practice, and the potential consequences of IVC filter placement so that we are better able to advise patients. There is a significant learning curve associated with IVC filter insertion, and when a filter is placed with the intention of removal, procedures should be in place to avoid the patient being lost to follow-up.
PURPOSE: The British Society of Interventional Radiology (BSIR) Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filter Registry was produced to provide an audit of current United Kingdom (UK) practice regarding placement and retrieval of IVC filters to address concerns regarding their safety. METHODS: The IVC filter registry is a web-based registry, launched by the BSIR on behalf of its membership in October 2007. This report is based on prospectively collected data from October 2007 to March 2011. This report contains analysis of data on 1,434 IVC filter placements and 400 attempted retrievals performed at 68 UK centers. Data collected included patient demographics, insertion and retrieval data, and patient follow-up. RESULTS: IVC filter use in the majority of patients in the UK follows accepted CIRSE guidelines. Filter placement is usually a low-risk procedure, with a low major complication rate (<0.5 %). Cook Gunther Tulip (560 filters: 39 %) and Celect (359 filters: 25 %) filters constituted the majority of IVC filters inserted, with Bard G2, Recovery filters, Cordis Trapease, and OptEase constituting most of the remainder (445 filters: 31 %). More than 96 % of IVC filters deployed as intended. Operator inexperience (<25 procedure) was significantly associated with complications (p < 0.001). Of the IVC filters initially intended for temporary placement, retrieval was attempted in 78 %. Of these retrieval was technically successful in 83 %. Successful retrieval was significantly reduced for implants left in situ for >9 weeks versus those with a shorter dwell time. New lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or IVC thrombosis was reported in 88 patients following filter placement, there was no significant difference of incidence between filter types. CONCLUSIONS: This registry report provides interventional radiologists and clinicians with an improved understanding of the technical aspects of IVC filter placement to help improve practice, and the potential consequences of IVC filter placement so that we are better able to advise patients. There is a significant learning curve associated with IVC filter insertion, and when a filter is placed with the intention of removal, procedures should be in place to avoid the patient being lost to follow-up.