Abstract
IN 1989, an article was published titled “Inferior Vena Cava Filter: Search for an Ideal Device” (1). In that article, Yune outlined many of the requirements for an ideal filter, including the ability to retrieve the device, and pointed out the need for prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical studies. Since then, more than 16 years have passed. What progress has been made? Unfortunately, in the arena of prospective trials, we have largely failed: as Girard and colleagues (2) point out, the literature regarding filters continues to be weak, and “many if not most indications for filter placement will remain a matter of opinion.” We have seen successes and failures with device design, but some progress has been made, and three retrievable or optionally retrievable filters are now approved by the Food and Drug Administration: the Recovery filter (RF) (CR Bard, Tempe, AZ), the Gunther Tulip filter (GTF) (Cook, Bloomington, IN), and the OptEase filter (OF) (Cordis, Miami, FL). In this issue of JVIR, Oliva et al (3) provide us with data on a series of 27 patients treated with the OF. This adds to the existing literature regarding this device, which includes a series of 94 trauma patients treated with the OF (4).
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.