Literature DB >> 31202677

Randomized Controlled Study of an Absorbable Vena Cava Filter in a Porcine Model.

Mitchell Eggers1, Serge Rousselle2, Mark Urtz3, Rhonda Albright3, Alice Will3, Bettina Jourden3, Cynthia Godshalk4, Stephen Dria5, Steven Huang6, Joseph Steele6.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of an absorbable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter and a benchmark IVC filter in a porcine model.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized controlled Good Laboratory Practice study was performed in Domestic Yorkshire cross swine. Sixteen swine were implanted with an absorbable IVC filter (test device; Adient Medical, Pearland, Texas); 8 were implanted with a benchmark metal IVC filter (control device; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana). All animals underwent rotational digital subtraction pulmonary angiography and cavography (anteroposterior and lateral) before filter deployment and 5 and 32 weeks after deployment. Terminal procedures and necropsy were performed at 32 weeks. The IVC, heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys were harvested at necropsy. The reported randomized controlled GLP animal study was conducted at Synchrony Labs, Durham, North Carolina.
RESULTS: One animal died early in the test cohort of a recurring hemorrhage at the femoral access site resulting from a filter placement complication. All other animals remained clinically healthy throughout the study. No pulmonary embolism was detected at the 5- and 32-week follow-up visits. The absorbable filter subjects experienced less caval wall perforation (0% vs 100%) and thrombosis (0% vs 75%). The control device routinely perforated the IVC and occasionally produced collateral trauma to adjacent tissues (psoas muscle and aorta). The veins implanted with the absorbable filter were macroscopically indistinguishable from normal adjacent veins at 32 weeks except for the presence of radiopaque markers. Nontarget tissues showed no device-related changes.
CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of the absorbable IVC filter in swine proved safe with no pulmonary emboli detected. There was complete to near-complete resorption of the filter polymer by 32 weeks with restoration of the normal appearance and structure of the IVC.
Copyright © 2019 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31202677      PMCID: PMC6736596          DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2019.03.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol        ISSN: 1051-0443            Impact factor:   3.464


  30 in total

1.  Quality improvement guidelines for percutaneous permanent inferior vena cava filter placement for the prevention of pulmonary embolism.

Authors:  Clement J Grassi; Timothy L Swan; John F Cardella; Steven G Meranze; Steven B Oglevie; Reed A Omary; Anne C Roberts; David Sacks; Mark I Silverstein; Richard B Towbin; Curtis A Lewis
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.464

Review 2.  Complications of inferior vena cava filters.

Authors:  Charles S Joels; Ronald F Sing; B Todd Heniford
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 0.688

3.  Retrievable inferior vena cava filters are not getting retrieved: where is the gap?

Authors:  Ousama Dabbagh; Nivedita Nagam; Rebecca Chitima-Matsiga; Smitha Bearelly; Dilip Bearelly
Journal:  Thromb Res       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.944

4.  Improving inferior vena cava filter retrieval rates: impact of a dedicated inferior vena cava filter clinic.

Authors:  Jeet Minocha; Ibrahim Idakoji; Ahsun Riaz; Jennifer Karp; Ramona Gupta; Howard B Chrisman; Riad Salem; Robert K Ryu; Robert J Lewandowski
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 3.464

Review 5.  Delayed complications of inferior vena cava filters: case report and literature review.

Authors:  Eric K Shang; Derek P Nathan; Jeffrey P Carpenter; Ronald M Fairman; Benjamin M Jackson
Journal:  Vasc Endovascular Surg       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 1.089

6.  Perforation of the IVC: rule rather than exception after longer indwelling times for the Günther Tulip and Celect retrievable filters.

Authors:  Jeremy C Durack; Antonio C Westphalen; Stephanie Kekulawela; Shiv B Bhanu; David E Avrin; Roy L Gordon; Robert K Kerlan
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2011-03-30       Impact factor: 2.740

7.  Resorbable inferior vena cava filters: trial in an in-vivo porcine model.

Authors:  Axel Thors; Patrick Muck
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.464

8.  Complications related to inferior vena cava filters: a single-center experience.

Authors:  Munier Nazzal; Edwin Chan; Mustafa Nazzal; Jihad Abbas; Grant Erikson; Soud Sediqe; Sabry Gohara
Journal:  Ann Vasc Surg       Date:  2009-11-08       Impact factor: 1.466

Review 9.  Outcome and complications of retrievable inferior vena cava filters.

Authors:  Paul D Stein; Majd Alnas; Elias Skaf; Fadi Kayali; Tehmina Siddiqui; Ronald E Olson; Kiritkumar Patel
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2004-10-15       Impact factor: 2.778

10.  Prevention of venous thromboembolism: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition).

Authors:  William H Geerts; David Bergqvist; Graham F Pineo; John A Heit; Charles M Samama; Michael R Lassen; Clifford W Colwell
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 9.410

View more
  1 in total

1.  In vivo performance of gold nanoparticle-loaded absorbable inferior vena cava filters in a swine model.

Authors:  Steven Y Huang; Jossana A Damasco; Li Tian; Linfeng Lu; Joy Vanessa D Perez; Katherine A Dixon; Malea L Williams; Megan C Jacobsen; Stephen J Dria; Mitchell D Eggers; Adam D Melancon; Rick R Layman; Elizabeth M Whitley; Marites P Melancon
Journal:  Biomater Sci       Date:  2020-06-19       Impact factor: 6.843

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.