Literature DB >> 31734075

A Single-Institutional Comparative Analysis of Advanced Versus Standard Snare Removal of Inferior Vena Cava Filters.

Osman Ahmed1, Ye Joon Kim2, Mikin V Patel3, Thomas G Tullius1, Rakesh Navuluri1, Brian Funaki1, Thuong Van Ha1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate differences in procedure time, radiation exposure, and periprocedural complications associated with advanced inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval compared with standard snare retrieval.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 378 patients underwent standard or advanced IVC filter retrieval over a 5-year period. Technical success, retrieval techniques, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, and complications were analyzed. All retrieval procedures with techniques other than a "snare-and-sheath" method were categorized as advanced, including failed standard attempts requiring intraprocedural conversion to advanced techniques.
RESULTS: A total of 462 filter retrieval attempts were made in 378 patients (57% female). Success rates for standard and advanced retrieval attempts were 86.8% (317 of 365) and 91.8% (89 of 97), respectively. The rate of periprocedural complications was significantly higher in the advanced retrieval group (P = .006). Complication rates for standard and advanced retrievals were 0.6% (2 of 318; all minor) and 5.2% (5 of 97; 3 minor [3.1%] and 2 major [2.1%]), respectively. The 2 major complications during advanced retrievals included filter fracture and embolization. Average fluoroscopy time for advanced retrievals was significantly higher than for standard retrievals (23.1 min vs 4.3 min; P < .001). Average radiation dose for advanced retrievals was also significantly higher than for standard retrievals (557.2 mGy vs 156.9 mGy; P < .001). Use of general anesthesia was also significantly more common in advanced retrievals compared with standard retrievals (6.2% vs 0.9%; P = .002).
CONCLUSIONS: Advanced filter retrieval results in a similarly high rate of technical success compared with standard snare retrieval but is associated with greater fluoroscopy time, anesthesia requirements, and radiation exposure.
Copyright © 2019 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31734075     DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2019.07.014

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


  4 in total

Review 1.  CIRSE Standards of Practice on Peri-operative Anticoagulation Management During Interventional Radiology Procedures.

Authors:  Mohammed Hadi; Carolina Walker; Michael Desborough; Antonio Basile; Dimitrios Tsetis; Beverley Hunt; Stefan Müller-Hüllsbeck; Thomas Rand; Otto van Delden; Raman Uberoi
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 2.740

Review 2.  Rigid forceps and excimer laser use for complex inferior cava filter retrieval: a preliminary quantitative analysis of available evidence.

Authors:  Qian Yu; Patrick Tran; Deepak Iyer; Subhash Gutti; Davey Li; Xin Li; Rakesh Navuluri; Thong Van Ha; Osman Ahmed
Journal:  CVIR Endovasc       Date:  2022-07-08

Review 3.  Vena Cava Filters: Toward Optimal Strategies for Filter Retrieval and Patients' Follow-Up.

Authors:  Kiara Rezaei-Kalantari; David C Rotzinger; Salah D Qanadli
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-03-03

Review 4.  Procedural complications of inferior vena cava filter retrieval, an illustrated review.

Authors:  Keith B Quencer; Tyler A Smith; Amy Deipolyi; Hamid Mojibian; Raj Ayyagari; Igor Latich; Rahmat Ali
Journal:  CVIR Endovasc       Date:  2020-04-27
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.