| Literature DB >> 35932376 |
Philip Schuchardt1, Lilla Kis2, Alexey Goloubev2, Edward Keshishian2, Rahul Mhaskar3, Glenn Hoots2, Cliff Davis2, Kamal Massis2, Jamil Shaikh2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval is typically accomplished with standard snare technique. When this fails, more advanced techniques are necessary, especially when removal falls outside a 12-month window. Complications during filter retrieval depend heavily on technique, type of filter, and filter position. In this study we examined safety and efficacy of 536 filter retrievals at a tertiary care center and compared complication rates between standard snare and endobronchial forcep retrieval.Entities:
Keywords: Endobronchial forceps; IVC filter leg penetration; IVC filter removal; Standard loop snare; Tilted IVC filter
Year: 2022 PMID: 35932376 PMCID: PMC9357242 DOI: 10.1186/s42155-022-00316-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: CVIR Endovasc ISSN: 2520-8934
Indications for IVC filter placement
| Indication for IVC filter placement | Number of filters |
|---|---|
| Contraindication to anticoagulation in the setting of VTE | 187/536 (34.9%) |
| Placement in the pre/post operative period in setting of major surgery | 134/536 (25.0%) |
| Pharmaco-mechanical thrombectomy for iliofemoral DVT | 22/536 (4.1%) |
| Venous thromboembolism on therapeutic anticoagulation | 20/536 (3.7%) |
| Extensive VTE | 39/536 (7.3%) |
| Prophylactic placement (for example in trauma) | 20/536 (3.7%) |
| Placement at outside hospital or with an unknown indication | 114/536 (21.3%) |
Complications associated with attempted retrieval of permanent filters
| Permanent Filter Complications | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Filter Type | Grade 1–2 Complications (Minor) | Grade 3–5 Complications (Major) | Complication Rate |
| Trapease | 2 | 1 | 17.6% (3/17) |
| Venatech | 1 | 0 | 50% (1/2) |
| Simon Nitinol | 3 | 0 | 60% (3/5) |
| Greenfield | 1 | 1 | 33.3% (2/6) |
| Birdsnest | 1 | 0 | 100% (1/1) |
| Total | 8 | 2 | 32.3% (10/31) |
Complications associated with attempted retrieval of retrievable filters
| Retrievable Filter Complications | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Filter Type | Grade 1–2 Complications (Minor) | Grade 3–5 Complications (Major) | Complication Rate |
| Denali | 2 | 0 | 1.3% (2/157) |
| Gunther Tulip | 4 | 1 | 3.4% (5/147) |
| Optease | 0 | 0 | 0% (0.8) |
| Bard G2 | 1 | 0 | 3.8% (1/26) |
| Bard Recovery | 2 | 0 | 9.5% (2/21) |
| Eclipse | 0 | 0 | 0% (0/5) |
| Celect | 5 | 1 | 10.7% (6/56) |
| Option | 3 | 0 | 4.1% (3/74) |
| Bard | 3 | 0 | 42.9% (3/7) |
| Total | 20 | 2 | 4.4% (22/505) |
IVC filter retrieval data stratified by retrieval technique. Success rate, complication rate, and dwell time are recorded
| Technique | # Patients | Dwell time AVG (DAYS) | % SUCCESS | % Complications |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Only SNARE | 347 | 658 | (345/347)99.4% | 1.7% (6/347) |
| Only FORCEPS | 105 | 2778 | (104/105) 98.8% | 13.3% (14/105) |
| Loop Snare + Forceps | 68 | 1364 | (67/68) 98.0% | 16.2% (11/68) |
| OVERALL | 536 | 1203 | (525/536) 97.9% | 6.0% (32/536) |
Graded complications for each retrieval technique. If multiple complications occurred during a single procedure, then the complication with the highest grade was recorded
| Complications of IVC Filter Retrieval Based on Techniques of Removal | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 1 | Grade 2 | Grade 3 | Grade 4 | Grade 5 | Total | |
| Loop Snare | 0.58% (2/347) | 0.86% (3/347) | 0.29% (1/347) | 0% (0/347) | 0% (0/347) | 1.7% (6/347) |
| Forceps | 7.6% (8/105) | 2.9% (3/105) | 1.9% (2/105) | 0.95% (1/105) | 0% (0/105) | 13.3% (14/105) |
| Forceps + Loop Snare | 7.4% (5/68) | 8.8% (6/68) | 0% (0/68) | 0% (0/68) | 0% (0/68) | 16.2% (11/68) |
| Other Methods and Failed Filter Access | 6.3% (1/16) | 0% (0/16) | 0% (0/16) | 0% (0/16) | 0% (0/16) | 6.3% (1/16) |
| Total | 3.0% (16/536) | 2.2% (12/536) | 0.56% (3/536) | 0.19% (1/536) | 0% (0/537) | 6.0% (32/536) |