Kevin P Cohoon1, Joseph McBride2, Jeremy L Friese3, Ian R McPhail1,3. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 2. Division of Interventional Radiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska. 3. Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the success rate of retrievable inferior vena cava filter (IVC) removal in a tertiary care practice. BACKGROUND: Retrievable IVC filters became readily available in the United States following Food and Drug Administration approval in 2003, and their use has increased dramatically. They represent an attractive option for patients with contraindications to anticoagulation who may only need short-term protection against pulmonary embolism. METHODS: All patients who had undergone placement of a retrievable IVC filter at Mayo Clinic between 2003 and 2005 were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate our initial experience with retrievable inferior vena cava filters at a large tertiary care center. RESULTS: During a three-year-period of time, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN placed 892 IVC filters of which 460 were retrievable. Of the 460 retrievable filters placed (249 Günther Tulip®, 207 Recovery®, and 4 OptEase®), retrieval was attempted in 223 (48.5%). Of 223 initial attempts, 196 (87.9%) were initially successful and 27 (12.1%) were unsuccessful. Of the 27 unsuccessful initial retrieval attempts, 23 (85.2%) were because of the presence of significant thrombus within the filter and 4 (14.8%) were because of tilting and strut perforation. Of the 23 filters containing significant thrombus, 9 (39.1%) were later retrieved after a period of anticoagulation and resolution of the thrombus. CONCLUSIONS: Retrievable IVC filters can be removed with a high degree of success. Approximately one in ten retrievable IVC filter removal attempts may fail initially, usually because of significant thrombus within the filter. This does not preclude possible removal at a later date.
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the success rate of retrievable inferior vena cava filter (IVC) removal in a tertiary care practice. BACKGROUND: Retrievable IVC filters became readily available in the United States following Food and Drug Administration approval in 2003, and their use has increased dramatically. They represent an attractive option for patients with contraindications to anticoagulation who may only need short-term protection against pulmonary embolism. METHODS: All patients who had undergone placement of a retrievable IVC filter at Mayo Clinic between 2003 and 2005 were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate our initial experience with retrievable inferior vena cava filters at a large tertiary care center. RESULTS: During a three-year-period of time, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN placed 892 IVC filters of which 460 were retrievable. Of the 460 retrievable filters placed (249 Günther Tulip®, 207 Recovery®, and 4 OptEase®), retrieval was attempted in 223 (48.5%). Of 223 initial attempts, 196 (87.9%) were initially successful and 27 (12.1%) were unsuccessful. Of the 27 unsuccessful initial retrieval attempts, 23 (85.2%) were because of the presence of significant thrombus within the filter and 4 (14.8%) were because of tilting and strut perforation. Of the 23 filters containing significant thrombus, 9 (39.1%) were later retrieved after a period of anticoagulation and resolution of the thrombus. CONCLUSIONS: Retrievable IVC filters can be removed with a high degree of success. Approximately one in ten retrievable IVC filter removal attempts may fail initially, usually because of significant thrombus within the filter. This does not preclude possible removal at a later date.
Authors: Clive Kearon; Elie A Akl; Anthony J Comerota; Paolo Prandoni; Henri Bounameaux; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Michael E Nelson; Philip S Wells; Michael K Gould; Francesco Dentali; Mark Crowther; Susan R Kahn Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: H Decousus; A Leizorovicz; F Parent; Y Page; B Tardy; P Girard; S Laporte; R Faivre; B Charbonnier; F G Barral; Y Huet; G Simonneau Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-02-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nedaa Skeik; James C McEachen; Andrew H Stockland; Paul W Wennberg; Roger F J Shepherd; Raymond C Shields; James C Andrews Journal: Vasc Endovascular Surg Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 1.089
Authors: Ingrid M Bistervels; Abby E Geerlings; Peter I Bonta; Wessel Ganzevoort; IJsbrand A J Zijlstra; Saskia Middeldorp Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2021-10-26