INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the rates of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval and the number of patient's lost to follow-up, before and after the establishment of an IVC filter database and interventional radiology (inserting physician) led follow-up. METHODS: On the 1st of June 2012, an electronic interventional radiology database was established at our Institution. In addition, the interventional radiology team took responsibility for follow-up of IVC filters. Data were prospectively collected from the database for all patients who had an IVC filter inserted between the 1st June 2012 and the 31st May 2014. Data on patients who had an IVC filter inserted between the 1st of June 2009 to the 31st of May 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics, insertion indications, filter types, retrieval status, documented retrieval decisions, time in situ, trackable events and complications were obtained in the pre-database (n = 136) and post-database (n = 118) cohorts. RESULTS: Attempted IVC filter retrieval rates were improved from 52.9% to 72.9% (P = 0.001) following the establishment of the database. The number of patients with no documented decision (lost to follow-up) regarding their IVC filter reduced from 31 of 136 (23%) to 0 of 118 patients (P = < 0.001). There was a non-significant reduction in IVC filter dwell time in the post-database group (113 as compared to 137 days, P = 0.129). CONCLUSION: Following the establishment of an IVC filter database and interventional radiology led follow-up, we demonstrate a significant improvement in the attempted retrieval rates of IVC filters and the number of patient's lost to follow-up.
INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the rates of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval and the number of patient's lost to follow-up, before and after the establishment of an IVC filter database and interventional radiology (inserting physician) led follow-up. METHODS: On the 1st of June 2012, an electronic interventional radiology database was established at our Institution. In addition, the interventional radiology team took responsibility for follow-up of IVC filters. Data were prospectively collected from the database for all patients who had an IVC filter inserted between the 1st June 2012 and the 31st May 2014. Data on patients who had an IVC filter inserted between the 1st of June 2009 to the 31st of May 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics, insertion indications, filter types, retrieval status, documented retrieval decisions, time in situ, trackable events and complications were obtained in the pre-database (n = 136) and post-database (n = 118) cohorts. RESULTS: Attempted IVC filter retrieval rates were improved from 52.9% to 72.9% (P = 0.001) following the establishment of the database. The number of patients with no documented decision (lost to follow-up) regarding their IVC filter reduced from 31 of 136 (23%) to 0 of 118 patients (P = < 0.001). There was a non-significant reduction in IVC filter dwell time in the post-database group (113 as compared to 137 days, P = 0.129). CONCLUSION: Following the establishment of an IVC filter database and interventional radiology led follow-up, we demonstrate a significant improvement in the attempted retrieval rates of IVC filters and the number of patient's lost to follow-up.
Authors: Krishna Juluru; Pierre Elnajjar; Hao-Hsin Shih; Brian Hiestand; Jeremy C Durack Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 3.959