Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters Research Articles

Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Aligning Practice With Evidence to Improve Patient Outcomes

BackgroundDespite indications for the removal of temporary inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, many filters are unintentionally left in place, predisposing patients to adverse outcomes. ObjectiveThis quality improvement study set out to determine the impact of an IVC filter retrieval protocol on filter retrieval rates and patients lost to follow-up for patients who had undergone placement of a temporary IVC filter. MethodsFollowing a quasi-experimental design, data of all consecutive patients who underwent insertion of a temporary IVC filter for a period of 24-month preprotocol and 12-month postprotocol were compared. ResultsFilter retrieval rates of eligible filters increased from 64.2% to 100%; patients lost to follow-up decreased from 35.9% to 0% (p < .01, both outcomes). ConclusionAdoption of a comprehensive IVC filter protocol by the service that implants these devices can improve filter retrieval rates and decrease patients being lost to follow-up.

A single center 9-year experience in IVC filter retrieval - the importance of an IVC filter registry

BackgroundTo evaluate Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval practices over a 9-year period at an academic hospital with a prospectively maintained IVC filter registry.MethodAn IVC filter registry was maintained prospectively within our institution. We reviewed cases between August 2011 and June 2020, following filter status, retrieval plans, and eventual retrieval date. The validity of the database was cross referenced with a Picture Archiving and Communication System and patient records.ResultsThree hundred forty-three patients had IVC filters inserted. Three filter types were used, Celect (Cook Medical) in 189, Gunther Tulip (GT) (Cook Medical) in 65, ALN (ALN) in 89. 196 (57%) filters were retrieved, 108 (31.5%) were made permanent, 36 (10.5%) died before retrieval, and 3 (1%) were yet to be retrieved.Retrieval rates were 92.5% overall (86% for GT, 93% for Celect and 94.5% for ALN). The mean dwell time for successful retrieval was 59 days with the majority of insertions (85%) removed in under 100 days. Failed initial retrieval occurred in 23 patients, 10 (43%) were retrieved at second attempt, 13/23 filters remained in-situ and were deemed permanent.ConclusionThe removal of IVC filters, when indication for insertion has past, is no longer the sole responsibility of the referring physician but also the responsibility of the Interventionalist. Our retrieval rates of 92.5% of eligible IVC filters highlights the value of maintaining a prospective IVC filter registry.

Evaluation of a clinical decision support tool to predict permanence of retrievable inferior vena cava filters

ObjectiveTo evaluate the usefulness of a published clinical decision support tool to predict the likelihood of a retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter being maintained as a permanent device. MethodsThis multicenter retrospective cohort study included 1498 consecutive patients (852 men and 646 women; median age, 60 years; range, 18-98 years) who underwent retrievable IVC filter insertion between January 2012 and December 2019. The indications for IVC filtration, baseline neurologic disease, history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), and underlying malignancy were recorded. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of a published clinical support tool were calculated to determine the usefulness of the tool. ResultsThe majority of filters (1271/1498 [85%]) were placed for VTE with a contraindication to anticoagulation. A history of VTE was present in 811 of 1498 patients (54%) patients; underlying malignancy in 531 of 1498 patients (35%), and neurological disease in 258 of 1498 patients (17%). Of the 1498 filters, 456 (30%) were retrieved, 276 (18%) were maintained as permanent devices on follow-up, and 766 (51%) filters were not retrieved. The accuracy of the clinical prediction model was 61%, sensitivity was 60%, and specificity was 62%. ConclusionsA previously published clinical decision support tool to predict permanence of IVC filters had modest usefulness in the examined population; this factor should be taken into account when using this clinical decision support tool outside of the original study population. Future studies are required to refine the predictive capability of IVC filter decision support tools for broader use across different patient populations.

387 A systematic review on retrievable vena cava filters in pregnant patients

Introduction: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters can be used as alternatives to anticoagulants. They are used in venous thromboembolic disorders in order to prevent fatal pulmonary embolisms. Retrievable IVCFs seem to be an alternative option for preventing thromboembolic events in the peripartum period. Aims of the study: Venous thromboembolism is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality in developed countries. During pregnancy when anticoagulation is contraindicated or thromboembolic events occur close to delivery, retrievable inferior vena cava filters (rIVCFs) are preferable.

Clinical outcomes of retrievable inferior vena cava filters for venous thromboembolic diseases.

Aim: To identify literature evidence assessing retrievable inferior vena cava filter (rIVCF) for venous thromboembolic diseases. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify relevant references from the mainstay English and Chinese bibliographic databases (search period: January 2003 to October 2019). Results: 80 original studies with 11,413 patients were included in this review. The success rates of deploying the six types of rIVCFs ranged from 98.4 to 100.0%. Denali had the highest retrieval success rate (95.4-97.6%). The incidence rates of fracture and perforation associated with retrieving the six rIVCFs were less than 2%. Conclusion: The approved rIVCF had comparable clinical profiles, except that Denali was easier to be retrieved than other rIVCF.

Biopsy Forceps-Assisted Loop Snare Technique for Complex Retrieval of Inferior Vena Cava Filter.

Severe tilt with embedded hooks is a common obstacle to successful inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval. Disposal biopsy forceps were used to remodel the filter hook in the center position to release the embedded hook from the caval wall. The biopsy forceps-assisted loop snare technique was successfully used to retrieve filters with hooks embedded in the IVC wall. The biopsy forceps-assisted loop snare technique we present here offers a new solution for the complex retrieval of IVC filters. This technique may prove useful in cases where standard techniques at filter retrieval fail.

Do Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filters Affect the Rates of Venous Thromboembolism and Pulmonary Embolism in Patients Undergoing Major Spine Surgery?

Retrospective Analysis. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) represents a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in major spine surgery. Placement of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) in patients undergoing major spine surgery was previously adopted at our institution. This study reports our experience and compares VTE rates between patients with and without preoperative IVCF placement. A Retrospective comparative study was conducted on adult patients who underwent IVCF placement and those who did not prior to their spinal fusion procedure, between 2013 and 2016. Thoracolumbar fusions (anterior and/or posterior) of 7 or more levels, spinal osteotomies, and a minimum of a 3-month follow-up were included. Traumatic, oncologic, and cervical pathology were excluded. Primary outcomes measured included the incidence of overall VTE (DVT/PE), death, IVCF related complications, and IVCF retrieval. 386 patients who underwent major spine surgery, 258 met the eligibility criteria. Of those patients, 105 patients (40.7%) had prophylactic IVCF placement. All patients had postoperative SCDs and chemoprophylaxis. The presence of an IVCF was associated with an increased rate of overall VTE (14.3% vs 6.5%, P ≤ .05) and DVT episodes (8.6% vs 2.6%, P = .04). The rate of PE for the IVCF group and non-IVCF group was 8.6% and 4.6%, respectively, which was not statistically significant (P = .32). The all-cause mortality rate overall of 2.3% was statistically similar between both groups (P = 1.0). The IVCF group had higher rates of hematoma/seroma vs the non-IVCF group (12.4% vs 3.9%, P ≤ .05). 99 IVCFs were retrievable designs, and 85% were successfully retrieved. Overall IVCF-related complication rate was 11%. No statistical difference in PE or mortality rates existed between the IVCF and the control group. Patients with IVCF placement experienced approximately twice the rate of VTE and three times the rate of DVT compared to those without IVCF. The IVCF-related complication rate was 11%. Based on the results of this study, the authors recommend against the routine use of prophylactic IVCFs in adults undergoing major spine surgery. III.

Thromboembolic clinical event rates and mortality for patients with and without inferior vena cava filter retrieval in a multicenter study

ObjectiveDespite the widespread use of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs), no large controlled trials have examined the IVCF retrieval rates and clinical events for patients without retrieved IVCFs. We hypothesized that IVCF retrieval success would decrease as the time from placement increased and that the clinical event rates would be more prevalent for those without a retrieved IVCF. We evaluated retrieval success as a function of time and compared the rates of venous thromboembolism and mortality between patients who had undergone IVCF retrieval within 12 months vs patients with unsuccessful IVCF retrieval. MethodsAll patients who had undergone IVCF placement between 2011 and 2017 with available follow-up data at eight community hospitals were enrolled in our retrospective cohort study. The procedure dates, incidence of subsequent deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism, and mortality dates were collected. Patients were classified as having a nonretrieved IVCF if their IVCF had not been retrieved after ≥12 months of follow-up. ResultsOf 1709 patients who had undergone IVCF placement, IVCF retrieval was successful for 770. We found a significant (P = .018) decrease in retrieval success as the time from IVCF insertion increased. After a mean of 36 ± 16 months, the incidence of subsequent DVT was lower in the retrieved group than in the nonretrieved group (8.1% vs 11.9%; P = .05; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.00). Mortality was lower for those with retrieved than for those without retrieved IVCFs (8.8% vs 28.8%; P < .001; hazard ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.7). No significant difference was found in the rate of pulmonary embolism. ConclusionsIVCF nonretrieval was more likely for older patients with a greater prevalence of comorbid conditions. Increased rates of subsequent DVT and mortality were observed for patients without IVCF retrieval. Finally, the likelihood of successful IVCF retrieval decreased with increased time from IVCF placement.

Clinical practice and volume trends of inferior vena cava filter usage at a single tertiary care center during a 19-year period

BackgroundWe investigated the clinical practice and volume trends of inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) usage at a single institution for an extended period and identified the potential factors affecting the clinical decision for placement, follow-up, and retrieval. MethodsAn institutional database was queried for IVCFs placed from 2000 to 2018 using the Current Procedural Terminology codes. The medical records were reviewed to evaluate the demographics, economic status, placement indication, IVCF type, follow-up evaluation for retrieval, and retrieval success rates. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS, and t tests for continuous and χ2 for categorical variables. ResultsA total of 3915 IVCFs were placed from 2000 to 2018. The placement of IVCFs had increased steadily from 2000 (127 IVCFs/y), peaking in 2010 at 371 IVCFs/y and representing a 292% increase in IVCF usage. Since 2010, the number of IVCFs placed has steadily declined until 2016 to 2018, with a 426% decrease from the peak. In a subgroup of IVCFs placed for prophylaxis, the total volume trends paralleled a shift in clinical indications, peaking in 2010 and accounting for 45% of all IVCFs placed and then decreasing from 2013 to 2018 to ≤10%. Overall, 989 permanent IVCFs (25.3%) and 2926 retrievable IVCFs (74.7%) were placed during the entire study period. Before dedicated efforts to implement retrieval follow-up visits, the successful retrieval rate was ∼1% from 2000 to 2006 and had increased to ∼10% to 15% from 2007 to 2015, 36.7% in 2016, 40.2% in 2017, and 40.3% in 2018 after implementation of more active retrieval follow-up protocols. The predictors for the lack of evaluation for IVCF retrieval included an extended length of stay (P = .004) and geographic distance (P < .001). ConclusionsThe use of IVCFs during the past 19 years at our institution reflected increased usage from 2000 to 2010, corresponding to an increase in prophylactic placement, followed by a decreasing total volume from 2011 to 2018, largely attributable to decreased prophylactic IVCF placement. Improved retrieval rates were seen after implementation of an active IVCF retrieval program.

Ibero-American Society of Interventionism (SIDI) and the Spanish Society of Vascular and Interventional Radiology (SERVEI) Standard of Practice (SOP) for the Management of Inferior Vena Cava Filters in the Treatment of Acute Venous Thromboembolism.

Objectives: to present an interventional radiology standard of practice on the use of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) in patients with or at risk to develop venous thromboembolism (VTE) from the Iberoamerican Interventional Society (SIDI) and Spanish Vascular and Interventional Radiology Society (SERVEI). Methods: a group of twenty-two interventional radiologist experts, from the SIDI and SERVEI societies, attended online meetings to develop a current clinical practice guideline on the proper indication for the placement and retrieval of IVCFs. A broad review was undertaken to determine the participation of interventional radiologists in the current guidelines and a consensus on inferior vena cava filters. Twenty-two experts from both societies worked on a common draft and received a questionnaire where they had to assess, for IVCF placement, the absolute, relative, and prophylactic indications. The experts voted on the different indications and reasoned their decision. Results: a total of two-hundred-thirty-three articles were reviewed. Interventional radiologists participated in the development of just two of the eight guidelines. The threshold for inclusion was 100% agreement. Three absolute and four relative indications for the IVCF placement were identified. No indications for the prophylactic filter placement reached the threshold. Conclusion: interventional radiologists are highly involved in the management of IVCFs but have limited participation in the development of multidisciplinary clinical practice guidelines.

Factors Associated With Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement and Retrieval for Patients With Cancer-Associated Thrombosis

BackgroundVenous thromboembolism is a leading cause of death in patients with cancer. Inferior vena cava filters are utilized to mitigate the risk of pulmonary embolism for patients who have contraindication to, or failure of, anticoagulation. MethodsWe reviewed an insurance claims database to identify adults receiving cancer-directed therapy and had a new diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. We then evaluated clinical and sociodemographic characteristics in patients with and without filter placement and retrieval. ResultsThere were 25,788 patients (mean [SD] age: 68.3 [12.7] years) who met the study inclusion criteria, with 2111 individuals (8.2%) undergoing filter placement. Filter placement was associated with the type of thrombosis, malignancy, recent surgery, comorbidities, and income. A total of 137 patients (6.5%) newly started anticoagulation within 3 days of filter placement, and 612 (29%) patients received anticoagulation within 30 days after filter placement. Despite this, only 159 (7.5%) patients had their filters retrieved during the study period. Patients with income of $75-99K (odds ratio 2.13, P = .012) or above $100K (odds ratio 1.8, P = .038) were more likely to have filter retrieval compared with those with income <$50K. Filter retrieval was also more likely in younger patients and those with fewer comorbidities or without central nervous system or lung malignancies. ConclusionsInferior vena cava filter placement and retrieval are associated with several sociodemographic factors. Filter retrieval rates are low despite re-initiation of anticoagulation in many patients. Efforts are needed to address disparities in filter use and improve retrieval rates.

Balloon-assisted inferior vena cava filter retrieval: A novel technique to enhance irretrievable filter extraction

Although the use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters has expanded, complications have led to the recommendation to remove all unnecessary filters. Several techniques exist to aid in retrieving irretrievable IVC filters. The balloon-assisted retrieval technique has previously been described to aid in cases of an embedded hook. This report describes an alternative use of the balloon-assisted technique, specifically to aid in the retrieval of Greenfield IVC filters in cases of strut perforation of the cava wall. This technique was successfully performed in six out of six attempted cases with no associated complications.

Predictors of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval in Population-Based Canadian Cohort

The objective of the present study was to determine the predictors of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval in a contemporary North American cohort of patients derived from administrative health data.

Bidirectional Sling Technique with Biopsy Forceps for Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval.

Although the importance of the retrieval of an optional inferior vena cava filter (o-IVCF) has gained attention because of the awareness of a high complication rate with long indwelling time, the o-IVCF retrieval rate remains low. The advanced retrieval technique of o-IVCF may increase the retrieval rate, which in turn diminishes future adverse events. Through two cases, we describe how to perform the novel approach “bidirectional sling technique with biopsy forceps.” This technique will improve the retrieval rate in patients following the failure by conventional retrieval technique.

Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters-Use, Removal, and Removal Techniques.

The use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters is on the rise, but there is an inadequate number of these filters being removed even if their use as a prophylactic for venous thromboembolism is no longer indicated. Complications with retrievable filters that remain in the patient for an extended duration include examples such as filter tilt and embedding into the caval wall. This raises concerns for whether the filter is properly functioning and for consequent sequelae, including recurrent thrombosis, stenosis, or inferior vena cava perforation. With these complications, there are also challenges to retrieving these filters via the standard techniques and thus more advanced techniques are required. Both standard and advanced techniques, their uses, and possible risks of these methods are also discussed.

Comparison of the in vitro clot-capturing efficiencies of commercially available retrievable inferior vena cava filters

ObjectiveWe compared the in vitro clot-capturing efficiencies (CCEs) of commercially available retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. MethodsFour types of commercially available retrievable IVC filters were included in the present study: Denali (BD, Franklin Lakes, NJ), OptEase (Cordis Corp, Hialeah, Fla), Celect (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind), and Option (Argon Medical Devices, Frisco, Tex). The CCE of each IVC filter for 10 different size clots, ranging from 2 mm × 10 mm to 6 mm × 20 mm, was analyzed using a venous flow simulator. ResultsWhen ≥4 × 10-mm clots were used, the CCEs were 100% for all four types of IVC filters in a 20-mm-diameter simulated IVC filter. However, when ≤3 × 20-mm clots were used, the CCEs were significantly different among the four types of filters in a 20-mm-diameter simulated IVC, with the Denali showing the highest CCE, followed by the OptEase, Celect, and Option. When ≥6 × 10-mm clots were used, the CCEs were 100% for all four types of IVC filters in the 25-mm-diameter simulated IVC. However, when ≤5 × 20-mm clots were used, the CCEs were significantly different among the four types of filters in the 25-mm-diameter simulated IVC, with the Denali showing the highest CCE. When ≤5 × 10-mm clots were used, the CCEs were significantly lower in the 25-mm-diameter simulated IVC than in the 20-mm-diameter simulated IVC for all four types of IVC filters, with Option showing the greatest change in CCEs, followed by the Celect, OptEase, and Denali. ConclusionsThe CCEs were significantly different among the four IVC filters and were significantly lower for the smaller size clots than for the larger size clots and for the larger diameter simulated IVC than for the smaller diameter simulated IVC.

Variability in the perception and application of force used in IVC filter retrievals among interventional radiologists

IntroductionA long dwell time is associated with higher inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval complication rates. Manufacturers advise that “excessive force should not be used” during filter retrieval; however, the term “excessive” is subjective and is likely to lead to variability amongst operators. The aims of this study were to 1) ascertain what interventional radiologists consider to be excessive force during filter retrieval and 2) to understand the variability in interventional radiologists’ perception of force. MethodsThe authors recruited interventional radiologists to perform a benchtop simulated filter retrieval. Participants were invited to pull on a modified force tester attached to a Gunther Tulip filter retrieval set (GTRS). The participants were asked to pull as if they were retrieving an IVC filter and stop when they felt it was clinically unsafe to apply greater force. They were then asked to replicate forces of 10N and 50N, respectively. Each of the three tasks was completed three times. Data were obtained on the clinical experience of the participants with specific questions focusing on their filter retrieval practices. ResultsThe range of maximum forces applied during filter retrieval varied between 0.8 and 79.8N. When asked to replicate 10N and 50N, for attempt-1, the median forces produced were 23.5N and 38.1N, respectively. A trend analysis showed that those who overestimate 10N are more likely to apply a greater overall maximum force (rs = 0.622; P < 0.001). ConclusionThere is wide variation in what interventional radiologists consider to be the maximum safe force to apply during IVC filter retrieval. Implications for practiceManufacturers and operators should consider methods in which only a safe range of forces can be applied during an IVC filter retrieval. Operators may wish to undertake ‘personal’ force calibration as part of training in interventional radiology.

Risk factors associated with complex inferior vena cava filter retrievals and complications: A 7-year retrieval database analysis and the impact on retrieval rates at an Australian tertiary centre.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) affects approximately 17,000 Australians annually. While anticoagulation is the mainstay of treatment, inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) are used in patients where this is contraindicated. The primary aim was to identify risk factors for complex retrievals and IVCF-related complications following the establishment of a database at a single tertiary centre. The secondary aim was to evaluate the IVCF retrieval rate and patients lost to follow-up. A retrospective study at a single tertiary centre was conducted on IVCFs inserted from 2012 to 2018. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate potential risk factors for filter-related complications and complex retrievals. In total, 402 patients had an IVCF inserted. Of these, 308 patients (77%) had a retrieval attempted, 10 (3%) of which required more than one retrieval attempt (complex retrieval). Factors associated with filter-related complications included dwell time (OR 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.04) and select indications for insertion, namely VTE requiring thrombolysis/thrombectomy (OR 2.29, 95% CI: 1.02-5.16) and iliocaval/free-floating iliofemoral DVT without thrombectomy/thrombolysis (OR 5.89, 95% CI: 1.53-22.71). After mutual adjustment for all variables, only dwell time remained a significant factor for filter-related complications (adjusted OR 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.05) and complex retrieval (AOR 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02-1.08). The annual retrieval rate increased from 73% (2012) to 83% (2018), with an overall retrieval rate of 75%. Dwell time is a potential risk factor for filter-related complications and complex retrievals. The annual IVCF retrieval rate was 75% since an Interventional Radiology-led database was established.

Analysis of Costs and Payments for Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval in the Medicare Population

Over the past decade, inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval has been increasing, in part due to Food and Drug Administration recommendations and legal pressure. The costs and margin of IVC filter removal are poorly understood. Medicare claims data from 2016 for the 103 highest volume centers for IVC filter retrieval were examined. Pooled mean charges, costs, payments, and margin were calculated by institution. Mean ± SD charges, costs, and payments were $14,138.00 ± $8,400.48, $3,693.28 ± $2,294.27, and $1,949.82 ± $702.91, respectively. Average (range) margin was −$1,706.18 (−$7,509.93 to $362.77). The margin was negative in 99 of the 103 (96%) institutions evaluated. The most significant contributors to the total procedure cost were operating room, supplies, and recovery (44.5%, 23.5%, and 10.4%, respectively). While IVC filter retrieval is often medically indicated, it is typically associated with a financial loss under current reimbursement structure.

Inferior vena cava filter tilting between placement and retrieval is associated with caval diameter and need for complex retrieval techniques

PurposeInferior vena cava (IVC) filter tilt may lead to apex embedment and need for advanced retrieval techniques. This study assesses factors associated with filter tilt change over time and need for complex retrieval procedures. Materials and methods252 consecutive patients underwent retrievable IVC filter placement and removal at a single academic institution over 58 months. 182 (72.2%) patients met inclusion criteria. IVC filters included 168 (92.3%) Gunther Tulip and 14 (7.7%) Option filters. The primary outcome was medial-to-lateral IVC filter tilt change between placement and retrieval. Secondary outcomes included advanced retrieval technique use and multiple retrieval attempts. Independent variables included demographics, IVC diameter, filter hook position relative to the renal veins, and dwell time. Associations were determined using student's t-tests, ANOVA, and linear and logistic regressions. ResultsMean IVC diameter at placement was 19.2 ± 3.3 mm. Mean filter tilts at placement and retrieval were 6.1 ± 4.9° and 5.2 ± 5.0°, respectively. Mean tilt change was 5.0 ± 5.0°. Larger IVC diameter was associated with greater filter tilt change (p = 0.0004). While IVC diameter did not independently predict retrieval difficulty, greater tilt change and prolonged dwell time were associated with increased advanced retrieval technique use (p = 0.01 and 0.002, respectively). Results were unchanged in a subgroup analysis of patients treated with Gunther Tulip filters. ConclusionLarger IVC diameter predicts increased filter tilt change, which in turn is associated with challenging retrievals. Attention to IVC diameter during filter placement may anticipate tilt-related complications.