Abstract
Tilt and caval penetration among permanent and retrievable inferior vena cava filters of similar design
Highlights
Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are commonly placed in patients at risk for pulmonary embolism (PE) or who have PE and a contraindication to anticoagulation, have failed anticoagulation, or have had a complication related to anticoagulation [1]
Permanent filters have largely been replaced by retrievable filters due to increased risk of lower extremity thrombosis associated with prolonged permanent filter dwell time [1,3,4]
Institutional review board approval was granted for this single institution, retrospective review, and the study was compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
Summary
Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are commonly placed in patients at risk for pulmonary embolism (PE) or who have PE and a contraindication to anticoagulation, have failed anticoagulation, or have had a complication related to anticoagulation [1]. Permanent filters have largely been replaced by retrievable filters due to increased risk of lower extremity thrombosis associated with prolonged permanent filter dwell time [1,3,4]. Filter-related complications include caval wall penetration, IVC thrombosis, and in some cases, retrievable filters cannot be safely removed due to hook contact with the caval wall or strut penetration through the cava [1,5,6,7]. These issues tend to be magnified by the degree of filter tilt and duration of dwell time [8]. Similar potential complications exist between permanent and retrievable filters, permanent filters are associated with fewer device related complications [7,9]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
