| Literature DB >> 33206563 |
Andrew Kesselman1, Thein Hlaing Oo2, Matthew Johnson3, Michael S Stecker4, John Kaufman5, David Trost1.
Abstract
Despite inferior vena cava (IVC) filter practice spanning over 50 years, interventionalists face many controversies in proper utilization and management. This article reviews recent literature and offers opinions on filter practices. IVC filtration is most likely to benefit patients at high risk of iatrogenic pulmonary embolus during endovenous intervention. Filters should be used selectively in patients with acute trauma or who are undergoing bariatric surgery. Retrieval should be attempted for perforating filter and fractured filter fragments when imaging suggests feasibility and favorable risk-to-benefit ratio. Antibiotic prophylaxis should be considered when removing filters with confirmed gastrointestinal penetration. Anticoagulation solely because of filter presence is not recommended except in patients with active malignancy. Anticoagulation while filters remain in place may decrease long-term filter complications in these patients. Patients with a filter and symptomatic IVC occlusion should be offered filter removal and IVC reconstruction. Physicians implanting filters may maximize retrieval by maintaining physician-patient relationships and scheduling follow-up at time of placement. Annual follow-up allows continued evaluation for removal or replacement as appropriate. Advanced retrieval techniques increase retrieval rates but require caution. Certain cases may require referral to experienced centers with additional retrieval resources. The views expressed should help guide clinical practice, future innovation, and research.Entities:
Keywords: IVC; filter retrieval; inferior vena cava filter; venous thromboembolism
Year: 2021 PMID: 33206563 DOI: 10.2214/AJR.20.24817
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol ISSN: 0361-803X Impact factor: 3.959