A Comparison of Retrievability: Celect versus Option Filter

Abstract

PurposeTo compare the retrievability of 2 potentially retrievable inferior vena cava filter devices. Materials and MethodsA retrospective, institutional review board–approved study of Celect (Cook, Inc, Bloomington, Indiana) and Option (Rex Medical, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania) filters was conducted over a 33-month period at a single institution. Fluoroscopy time, significant filter tilt, use of adjunctive retrieval technique, and strut perforation in the inferior vena cava were recorded on retrieval. Fisher exact test and Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test were used for comparison. ResultsThere were 99 Celect and 86 Option filters deployed. After an average of 2.09 months (range, 0.3–7.6 mo) and 1.94 months (range, 0.47–9.13 mo), respectively, 59% (n = 58) of patients with Celect filters and 74.7% (n = 65) of patients with Option filters presented for filter retrieval. Retrieval failure rates were 3.4% for Celect filters versus 7.7% for Option filters (P = .45). Median fluoroscopy retrieval times were 4.25 minutes for Celect filters versus 6 minutes for Option filters (P = .006). Adjunctive retrieval techniques were used in 5.4% of Celect filter retrievals versus 18.3% of Option filter retrievals (P = .045). The incidence of significant tilting was 8.9% for Celect filters versus 16.7% for Option filters (P = .27). The incidence of strut perforation was 43% for Celect filters versus 0% for Option filters (P < .0001). ConclusionsRetrieval rates for the Celect and Option filters were not significantly different. However, retrieval of the Option filter required a significantly increased amount of fluoroscopy time compared with the Celect filter, and there was a significantly greater usage of adjunctive retrieval techniques for the Option filter. The Celect filter had a significantly higher rate of strut perforation.