PURPOSE: To evaluate the clot trapping capacity of different temporary vena cava filters in a vena cava model. METHODS: A vena cava flow model was built using PVC tubing, a hemodialysis membrane and a pulsatile pump. Blood was imitated by a Dextran 40 solution. Five different temporary vena cava filters and two prototypes were tested using human thrombi. The mechanism of clot capture was observed. RESULTS: Decreasing rank order according to decreasing percentage of clots captured for the 21-mm diameter vena cava model was Cook (C) > Angiocor (A) > Cordis (CD) > Antheor (TF-6) > DIL for thrombi with a diameter of 3 mm and A > C > CD > TF-6 > DIL for 5-mm thrombi. In a cava with diameter of 28 mm, decreasing rank order was C > CD = A > TF-6 > DIL and C > CD = A > DIL > TF-6 for 3- and 5-mm thrombi, respectively. Two new prototypes, the TF-8 and TF-10 filters, achieved better results than the TF-6 filter and were in most conditions comparable to the A and CD filters. In most cases, thrombi were trapped between filter and cava wall. CONCLUSION: The vena cava flow model demonstrates significant differences in rates of clot capture (range 22%-98%) depending on cava diameter, thrombus size, and filter type.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clot trapping capacity of different temporary vena cava filters in a vena cava model. METHODS: A vena cava flow model was built using PVC tubing, a hemodialysis membrane and a pulsatile pump. Blood was imitated by a Dextran 40 solution. Five different temporary vena cava filters and two prototypes were tested using humanthrombi. The mechanism of clot capture was observed. RESULTS: Decreasing rank order according to decreasing percentage of clots captured for the 21-mm diameter vena cava model was Cook (C) > Angiocor (A) > Cordis (CD) > Antheor (TF-6) > DIL for thrombi with a diameter of 3 mm and A > C > CD > TF-6 > DIL for 5-mm thrombi. In a cava with diameter of 28 mm, decreasing rank order was C > CD = A > TF-6 > DIL and C > CD = A > DIL > TF-6 for 3- and 5-mm thrombi, respectively. Two new prototypes, the TF-8 and TF-10 filters, achieved better results than the TF-6 filter and were in most conditions comparable to the A and CD filters. In most cases, thrombi were trapped between filter and cava wall. CONCLUSION: The vena cava flow model demonstrates significant differences in rates of clot capture (range 22%-98%) depending on cava diameter, thrombus size, and filter type.