Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters Research Articles

Revolutionizing inferior vena cava filter retrieval with electromagnetic graspers and gold-coated magnetic beads

Revolutionizing inferior vena cava filter retrieval with electromagnetic graspers and gold-coated magnetic beads

Laparoscopic-assisted retrieval of inferior vena cava filter: A case report and literature review.

The retrieval of inferior vena cava filters beyond the retrieval window poses challenges, requiring alternative techniques. To discuss the laparoscopy-assisted retrieval approach for difficult inferior vena cava filters. Case report. A 57-year-old male with a retrievable inferior vena cava filter placed 8months prior. Laparoscopy-assisted retrieval technique utilized after unsuccessful interventional attempts. Successful retrieval of the filter despite thickened intimal tissue involvement, with no postoperative complications. Laparoscopy-assisted retrieval offers a direct visual approach for challenging filter removal, proving minimally invasive, safe, and effective.

Successful retrieval of tip-embedded inferior vena cava filter using a modified forceps technique: case report

BackgroundThe retrieval of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is essential for preventing complications associated with the device. Advanced techniques have been developed to improve the success rate of retrieving tip-embedded filters. The forceps technique is frequently used to address this issue.Case presentationWe present a case study of two patients who underwent a successful tip-embedded IVC filter retrieval using a modified forceps technique, which has not been previously reported. This technique involves using a wire loop under the filter tip and a forceps to grasp the filter shoulder. By pulling the wire loop and pushing the forceps in counterforce, the filter tip is straightened and aligned with the vascular sheath. The vascular sheath can then dissect the filter tip out from the caval wall and get inside the sheath to complete the retrieval.ConclusionsThe modified forceps technique we present here offers a new solution for the complex retrieval of IVC filters.

Comparison of inferior vena cava filter use and outcomes between cancer and non-cancer patients in a tertiary hospital

BackgroundWhile accepted indications for the use of inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) in patients with a venous thromboembolism (VTE) have remained stable, their use continues to be frequent. Retrieval rates are still low, being particularly notable in the population with cancer. This study aims to review the rate of adherence to guidelines recommendation and to compare retrieval rates and complications in both cancer and non-cancer patients. MethodsA retrospective study was performed including 185 patients in whom an IVCF was placed in Hospital Clinic of Barcelona. Baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and IVCF-related outcomes were analyzed. A strongly recommended indication (SRI) was considered if it was included in all the revised clinical guidelines and non-strongly if it was included in only some. ResultsOverall, 47 % of the patients had a SRI, without differences between groups. IVCF placement after 29 days from the VTE event was more frequent in the cancer group (46.1 vs. 17.7 %). Patients with cancer (48.1 % of the cohort) were older, with higher co-morbidity and bleeding risk. Anticoagulation resumption (75.3 % vs. 92.7 %) and IVCF retrieval (50.6 % vs. 66.7 %) were significantly less frequent in cancer patients. No significant differences were found regarding IVCF-related complications, hemorrhagic events and VTE recurrence. ConclusionsSRI of IVCF placement was found in less than half of the patients. Cancer patients had higher rates of IVCF placement without indication and lower anticoagulation resumption and IVCF retrieval ratios, despite complications were similar in both groups.

Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval: Simple to Complex.

Retrievable inferior vena cava filters were designed to provide mechanical prophylaxis from pulmonary embolism with the intent for retrieval once no longer indicated, and have been utilized at a high rate since their introduction. Unfortunately, retrieval rates have historically lagged behind, in part due to significant rates of failed standard retrieval techniques for filters with prolonged dwell time. Refinement in advanced retrieval techniques has now allowed (in experienced centers) for safe removal of filters previously considered irretrievable. An individualized approach is necessary for each potential advanced filter retrieval to determine appropriate course of action. This review will emphasize complex filter retrieval techniques amidst a larger discussion of inferior vena cava filters and their management.

Complications Associated With Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval: A Systematic Review.

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have been used successfully in high-risk patients to prevent thromboembolism. The filters are widely created as retrievable devices, but complication rates progressively increase during IVC filter retrieval. This study aims to analyze IVC filter retrieval cases and associated complications during and following the procedures regarding dwell times, specific filter types, filter positioning, and advanced retrieval techniques.This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to select and analyze relevant articles. A literature search for articles was performed on September 23, 2023, through three research databases: PubMed, ProQuest, and ScienceDirect. The keywords used to identify relevant publications were "IVC Filter retrieval AND complications" and "IVC filter removal AND complications". The articles before 2012 were excluded. Relevant articles were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In total, 20,435 articles were found: 812 from PubMed, 15,635 from ProQuest, and 3,988 from Science Direct. Among the exclusions were 18,462 articles, which were excluded in the automatic screening process, leaving 1,973 for manual screening. The manual screening of articles was conducted based on title, abstract, article type, duplicates, and case reports, where 1,918 articles were excluded. Ultimately, 55 articles were included in this review. This study demonstrates that IVC filter retrievals have significant complication rates. Many complications have a common theme: prolonged dwell time and lost follow-up appointments. Therefore, importance should be placed on patient education and implementing strict protocols regarding the timelines of IVC filter removals.

Retrieval of a Greenfield Inferior Vena Cava Filter Indwelling for 29 Years.

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are used to prevent fatal and nonfatal pulmonary embolism in patients who otherwise cannot receive anticoagulation for venous thrombosis. While generally safe and effective, complications can arise, especially after prolonged implantation. Timely retrieval is essential once the indication for insertion has resolved. However, encountering patients with long-standing embedded filters is not uncommon. This case report discusses the successful retrieval of a permanent Greenfield IVC filter after 29 years.

Inferior Vena Cava Filter Long Term Complications and Retrieval Techniques: A Case Series and Literature Review.

Long-term mechanical complications after inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement include embedded or tilted filters, erosion of the vena cava, filter thrombosis. In the setting of caval thrombosis, patients may subsequently develop venous hypertension and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). Here we present three unique cases of IVC filter complications and surgical management. A 30-year-old female presented with acute abdominal pain, revealing a duodenal perforation caused by an IVC filter eroding into her duodenum. A 42-year-old female with an IVC filter in place for 20years due to a prior pulmonary embolism underwent laser-assisted retrieval of the filter due to concerns of caval adherence. A 48-year-old male with a history of DVT, venous stasis ulcer, and an IVC filter presented for filter retrieval. The surgical techniques described in this report include complicated IVC filter retrieval, performed in cases of filter complications including migration, fracture, duodenal perforation and IVC thrombosis resulting in PTS. One case, requiring open retrieval, is explained and the surgical technique is provided. There are images and videos of these procedures to enrich the learning experience. The surgical techniques described in this report include complicated inferior vena cava filter retrieval, performed in cases of filter complications including migration, fracture, duodenal perforation and IVC thrombosis. One case, requiring open retrieval, is explained and the surgical technique is provided. There are images and videos of these procedures to enrich the learning experience. Endovascular retrieval of long-term complicated IVC filters is challenging, but it can be a safely performed in many patients. However, open surgery may be necessary in selected patients.

Retained Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval: Novel Approach Using Tiger Tooth Foreign Body Holding Forceps

Abstract Only about one-third of all inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are successfully retrieved. This is largely due to factors such as IVC occlusion, filter tilt, and caval wall penetration among other reasons. IVC filter retrieval methods currently followed in practice involve the use of standard snares and wires, endobronchial forceps, LASER-tipped sheaths, and even open surgery. However, the success rate of filter retrieval continues to remain low, thereby increasing the risk of complications associated with retained IVC filters. This warrants a need to explore and adopt newer techniques of IVC filter retrieval. In this case report, we describe the novel use of a tiger tooth foreign body holding forceps in the successful retrieval of a retained IVC filter in an elderly man with intracranial hemorrhage.

Supply Costs in Complex and Routine Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval: 10 Years' Data from a Single Center

PurposeTo characterize the medical supply costs associated with inferior vena cava filter retrieval (IVCFR) using endobronchial forceps (EFs), a snare, or Recovery Cone (RC). Materials and MethodsIn total, 594 of 845 IVCFRs attempted at a tertiary referral hospital between October 1, 2012, and June 20, 2022 were categorized by intended retrieval strategy informed by, rotational cavography as follows: (a) EF (n = 312) for tilted or tip-embedded/strut-embedded filters and for long-dwelling closed-cell filters and (b) a snare (n = 255) or (c) RC (n = 27) for other well-positioned filters with or mostly without hooks, respectively. List prices of relevant supplies at time of retrieval were obtained or, rarely, estimated using a standard procedure. Contrast use, fluoroscopic time, filter type, dwell time, and patient age and sex were recorded. Mean between-group cost differences were estimated by linear regression, adjusting for date. Additional models evaluated filter type, dwell time, and patient-level effects. ResultsOf the 594 IVCFRs, 591 were successful, whereas 2 EF and 1 snare retrievals failed. Moreover, 4 EF retrievals were successful with a snare and 2 with smaller EF, 12 snare retrievals were successful with EF, 1 RC retrieval was successful with a snare and 2 with EF. Principal model indicated a significantly lower mean cost of EF ($564.70, SE ± 9.75) than that of snare ($811.29, SE ± 10.83; P < .0001) and RC ($1,465.48, SE ± 47.12; P < .0001) retrievals. Adjusted models yielded consistent results. Had all retrievals been attempted with EF, estimated undiscounted full-period supplies savings would be $87,201.51. ConclusionsEFs are affordable for complex IVCFR, and extending their use to routine IVCFR could lead to considerable cost savings.

The Impact of Implementation of a Commercial Inferior Vena Cava Filter Database Program on Filter Retrieval versus Physician Tracking over a 9-Year Period: A Retrospective, Observational Study

PurposeTo compare the impact of a commercial tracking database on inferior vena cava filter retrievals with that of physician tracking and no tracking. Materials and MethodsFrom January 2013 to December 2021, 532 filters were placed at a single institution and followed in 3 phases: (a) Phase 1, pretracking (January 1, 2013, to February 28, 2015); (b) Phase 2, commercial database tracking (March 1, 2015, to June 30, 2019); and (c) Phase 3, commercial database tracking with separate tracking by an interventional radiologist (July 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021). Patients excluded from the commercial database due to human error served as a control group. Outcomes of commercial database entry, 2-year filter retrieval rates, dwell times, and factors contributing to retrieval candidacy were collected. ResultsTwo-year retrieval rates in Phases 1, 2 and 3 were 20%, 31%, and 46%, respectively (Phase 1 vs 2, P = .04; Phase 2 vs 3, P = .009). Median dwell times across Phases 1, 2, and 3 were 168 days (4–1,313 days), 140 days (3–1,988 days), and 188 days (13–734 days) (P = .33), respectively. There was no difference in retrieval rates (P = .86) and dwell times (P = .50) between patients enrolled in the database group and those enrolled in the control group. Across all phases, 48% of patients enrolled in the database were not successfully contacted, and only 6% were categorized as “likely to consult” filter retrieval. During Phase 3, 100% of patients achieved a retrieval disposition. ConclusionsA commercial tracking database had low success rates of contacting patients and did not increase filter retrieval rates relative to those in the control group; however, physician tracking increased retrieval rates.

The development of a novel endovascular grasper for challenging inferior vena cava filter retrieval

ObjectiveAlthough inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are commonly retrieved using a snare, lateral tilt and fibrosis around struts can complicate the procedure and sometimes require the use of off-label devices. We describe the development of a novel articulating endovascular grasper designed to remove permanent and retrievable IVC filters in any configuration. MethodsFor in vitro testing, the IVC filters were anchored to the inner wall of a flexible tube in a centered or tilted configuration. A high-contrast backlit camera view simulated the two-dimensional fluoroscopy projection during retrieval. The time from the retrieval device introduction into the camera field to complete filter retrieval was measured in seconds. The control experiment involved temporary IVC filter retrieval with a snare. There were four comparative groups: (1) retrievable filter in centered configuration; (2) retrievable filter in tilted configuration; (3) permanent filter in centered configuration; and (4) permanent filter in tilted configuration. Every experiment was repeated five times, with median retrieval time compared with the control group. For in vivo testing in a porcine model, six tilted infrarenal IVC filters were retrieved with grasper via right jugular approach. Comparison analysis between animal and patient procedures was performed for the following variables: total procedure time, the retrieval time, and fluoroscopy time. ResultsThe in vitro experiments showed comparable retrieval times between the experimental groups 1, 2, and 4 and the control. However, grasper removal of a centered permanent filter (group 3) required significantly less time than in the control (29 vs 79 seconds; P = .009). In the animal model, all IVC filters were retrieved using the grasper with no adverse events. The total procedure time (21.2 vs 43.5 minutes; P = .01) and the fluoroscopy time (4.3 vs 10 minutes; P = .044) were significantly shorter in the animal model compared with the patient group. Moreover, in the patient group, 16.7% of retrievals required advanced endovascular techniques, and one IVC filter could not be retrieved (success rate = 91.7%), whereas all the IVC filters were successfully retrieved in the animal model without the use of additional tools. ConclusionsThe novel endovascular grasper is effective in retrieving different types of IVC filters in different configurations and compared favorably with the snare in the in vitro model. In vivo experiments demonstrated more effective retrieval when compared with matched patient retrievals.

Analysis of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Indications and Retrieval Rates at an Academic Medical Center in Appalachia

Introduction: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are placed for prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and a contraindication to anticoagulation. Additional clinical indications for IVC filters, such as pre-operative prophylaxis for VTE and extensive VTE, are controversial and vary across clinical guidelines. Current guidelines recommend that IVC filters be retrieved after resolution of their clinical indication. A common problem is failure to retrieve IVC filters when indicated, resulting in prolonged or indefinite placement of these devices. Failure to remove IVC filters contributes to an increased risk of filter-associated complications such as device migration, embolization to the cardiopulmonary circulation, perforation and increased risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). The goal of this study is to identify IVC filter indications and retrieval statistics at our academic medical center in Appalachia. We seek to compare our performance to national averages, identify the reasons for failure of retrieval in our patient population and develop quality improvement initiatives to improve our performance. Methods: An IRB-approved, single-institution, retrospective chart review was conducted for all patients who had an IVC filter placed between January 2020 and December 2022 at West Virginia University Hospital. Patient demographics, comorbidities, placement indications, retrieval statistics and filter-associated complications were obtained from the electronic medical record (EMR). Patients who had a permanent IVC filter placed were excluded from the final analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney U and Chi squared tests where appropriate to compare the retrieval and failure of retrieval groups. Results: The study sample (n=450) had a mean age of 65.3±15.4 years and was comprised of 54.2% males and 45.8% females. West Virginia residents comprised 82.4% of the study sample. The most common reported clinical indications for placement included VTE with a contraindication to anticoagulation (62.4%), preoperative prophylaxis for VTE (15.8%), extensive VTE (15.3%), pharmacomechanical thrombectomy (15.0%) or other (3.1%). The rate of IVC filter retrieval was 25.4% (n=114). The most common reasons for failure of retrieval were loss to follow-up (31.8%), other reasons including provider or patient preference (31.5%), patient death (28.3%), clinical indication remains present (5.7%) and unsuccessful retrieval (2.7%). Patients in the failure of retrieval group (n=114) were significantly older (69 vs 61 years, p&amp;lt;0.001) and had a higher frequency of clinical indications for history of VTE with a contraindication to anticoagulation (231 vs 50 patients, p&amp;lt;0.0001) and extensive VTE (49 vs 20 patients, p&amp;lt;0.0001) compared to retrieval group (n=336). There was a nonsignificant trend toward greater frequency of chronic conditions in the failure of retrieval group including cancer history (101 vs 26 patients, p=0.15), heart failure (44 vs 11, p=0.41) and hypercoagulable disease (16 vs 2 patients, p=0.26). Conclusions: Our institution had a lower IVC filter retrieval rate than the estimated average of 34% reported in a systematic review by Angel et al. Patients with comorbid conditions tended to not undergo retrieval, predisposing them to a higher risk of filter-associated complications. A history of VTE with a contraindication to anticoagulation was the most common clinical indication for placement, but the other most common indications are not universally guideline recommended which identified an area of opportunity for multidisciplinary provider education. Patient loss to follow-up is the predominant reason for failure of retrieval at our institution, which is consistent with the healthcare disparity faced by our predominantly rural, Appalachian patient population of travelling long distances to our tertiary center to obtain specialty care. Quality improvement strategies to mitigate this limitation in the context of IVC filter placement through close local follow-up for timely reassessment, retrieval evaluation and removal will be developed.

Application of the Double Series Filter Technique for the Treatment of Acute Inferior Vena Cava Filter-Mediated Thrombosis

In this study, we examined the safety and effectiveness of removing inferior vena cava (IVC) filters with residual acute thrombosis after endovascular therapy. A retrospective chart review of 712 patients who underwent retrievable IVC filter implantation between July 2018 and December 2022 was conducted. Residual thrombosis with the IVC filter occurred in 18 patients, and the volume of residual acute thrombosis in the IVC filter exceeded 1mL in all cases. Angiography was performed to evaluate the size of the residual thrombosis and its position with respect to the filter. The double series filter technique (first filter, infrarenal IVC filter; second filter, suprarenal IVC filter) was used to remove the filter and thrombosis. We summarize the diagnosis, treatment, and surgical experience of these patients. In this study, 16 of 18 patients (88.9%) demonstrated residual thrombosis in the IVC filter. One patient (5.6%) demonstrated thrombosis located both inside and floating above the filter, and one patient (5.6%) demonstrated thrombosis located both inside and underneath the filter. The technical success rate of double series IVC filter retrieval was 100%. Seventeen patients (94.4%) underwent single-stage suprarenal IVC filter retrieval, and one patient (5.6%, 1/18) underwent two-stage retrieval. In terms of residual thrombosis removal, 14 patients (77.7%) achieved complete removal and 4 patients (22.3%) achieved partial removal. Residual thrombosis could not be removed through the sheath in one patient, so femoral vein thrombectomy was performed. No other procedure-related complications were observed. The median follow-up time was 22.5±6.8months. No recurrence of thrombus symptoms was reported, and B ultrasound and computed tomography demonstrated smooth blood flow in the IVC, renal veins, and pulmonary artery. For patients with residual acute thrombosis on the IVC filter and in whom there was absence of a more appropriate treatment after percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy or catheter-directed thrombolysis therapy, the double series IVC filter technique was a safe approach to improve the IVC filter retrieval rate in the early stage, as well as for simultaneous residual thrombus removal.

Predictors of endobronchial forceps utilization for inferior vena cava filter retrieval: when snare retrieval fails

BackgroundEndobronchial forceps are commonly used for complex IVC filter removal and after initial attempts at IVC filter retrieval with a snare have failed. Currently, there are no clear guidelines to help distinguish cases where primary removal should be attempted with standard snare technique or whether attempts at removal should directly be started with forceps. This study is aimed to identify clinical and imaging predictors of snare failure which necessitate conversion to endobronchial forceps.MethodsRetrospective analysis of 543 patients who underwent IVC filter retrievals were performed at three large quaternary care centers from Jan 2015 to Jan 2022. Patient demographics and IVC filter characteristics on cross-sectional images (degree of tilt, hook embedment, and strut penetration, etc.) were reviewed. Binary multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of IVC filter retrieval where snare retrieval would fail.ResultsThirty seven percent of the patients (n = 203) necessitated utilization of endobronchial forceps. IVC filter hook embedment (OR:4.55; 95%CI: 1.74–11.87; p = 0.002) and strut penetration (OR: 56.46; 95% CI 20.2–157.7; p = 0.001) were predictors of snare failure. In contrast, total dwell time, BMI, and degree of filter tilt were not associated with snare failure. Intraprocedural conversion from snare to endobronchial forceps was significantly associated with increased contrast volume, radiation dose, and total procedure times (p < 0.05).ConclusionIVC filter hook embedment and strut penetration were predictors of snare retrieval failure. Intraprocedural conversion from snare to endobronchial forceps increased contrast volume, radiation dose, and total procedure time. When either hook embedment or strut penetration is present on pre-procedural cross-sectional images, IVC filter retrieval should be initiated using endobronchial forceps.Level of evidenceLevel 3, large multicenter retrospective cohort.

Abstract 13611: Right Ventricular Perforation and Subsequent Tamponade Due to Fractured Inferior Vena Cava Filter Strut

Description of Case: A 39-year-old woman with a remote history of unprovoked pulmonary embolism (PE) treated with a retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter presented with chest pain and syncope. Initial vital signs and examination were unremarkable. ECG showed diffuse ST elevations with PR depression consistent with acute pericarditis (Figure 1A). Given her history, CT angiogram (CTA) was performed and revealed complex pericardial effusion without PE. Echocardiogram confirmed large pericardial effusion with evidence of right ventricular diastolic collapse, raising concern for impending cardiac tamponade (Figure 1B). Urgent pericardiocentesis yielded 500 mL of sanguineous fluid, with resolution of effusion. A pericardial drain was left in place. Overnight she became hypotensive, tachycardic, diaphoretic, with muffled heart sounds on exam. Rapid re-accumulation of blood was noted from the drain, confirmed by repeat echo showing enlargement of the pericardial effusion. She was diagnosed with recurrent hemorrhagic pericardial effusion (HPE) of unclear etiology and was emergently taken for mediastinal exploration, where a metal shard measuring 2.2 cm was seen protruding though the RV (Figure 1C), confirmed on intraoperative TEE (Figure 1D). It was determined that a fractured IVC filter strut had migrated into the RV causing perforation and recurrent HPE. The strut was removed and RV defect patched. The patient did well post-operatively without effusion recurrence. Follow up CTA confirmed fractured IVC filter strut, with another filter strut also seen extending through the IVC wall (Figure E). Discussion: Rapid reaccumulation of a hemorrhagic, hemodynamically significant pericardial effusion without clear etiology, as in this case, should prompt consideration of surgical exploration to assess for bleeding source. As strut fractures are a known complication of retrievable IVC filters, these filters should be removed when no longer indicated.

Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter Trapped Embolus: A Risk Factor of Detachment of Thrombus Analysis Based on a Multicenter Prospective Observational Study.

Up to now, the indications of inferior vena cava filter placement still remain controversial in the academic field. The aim of this study was to determine the risk factors of detachment of thrombus and to evaluate the necessity of inferior vena cava filter placement to prevent fatal pulmonary embolism. A total of 2892 patients participated in the multicenter prospective observational study from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018, and underwent retrievable inferior vena cava filter (RIVCF) placement in 103 centers in China. The primary endpoint of the study was RIVCF trapped embolus detected by inferior vena cava venography/ultrasound/computed tomography scanning or visible macroscopic thrombus before or during RIVCF retrieval. The relative factors of RIVCF trapped embolus were analyzed accordingly. The average age of the patients was 61.0 (50.0-71.0) years. Retrievable inferior vena cava filter trapped embolus occurred in 308 patients (10.65%). The fracture location, surgery location, and endovascular intervention differed between RIVCF trapped embolus and non-RIVCF trapped embolus groups (p<0.001, respectively). By multivariate analysis, RIVCF trapped embolus were less common in older patients (odds ratio [OR]=0.998; p<0.001) and more common in patients with below-the-knee fracture (OR=1.093, p=0.038), thigh fracture (OR=1.118, p=0.007), and pelvis surgery (OR=1.067, p=0.016). In addition, compared with patients without endovascular intervention, patients with percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy (PMT) + catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) were more prone to develop RIVCF trapped embolus (OR=1.060, p=0.010). However, RIVCF trapped embolus was less common in patients with CDT (OR=0.961, p=0.004). Lower limb fracture, pelvis surgery, and PMT + CDT are prone to cause trapped embolus. As a trapped embolus often represents the possibility of severe pulmonary embolism, lower limb fracture, pelvis surgery, and PMT + CDT could be risk factors of fatal pulmonary embolism. Due to the low incidence of trapped embolus, it is not necessary to place filters in elderly patients and CDT-only patients. The purpose of this paper is to standardize the use of inferior vena cava filter and avoid unnecessary filter implantation through the summary and analysis of a large number of clinical data. At the same time, more attention should be paid to and active treatment should be given to high-risk groups of pulmonary embolism.

Guideline Compliance and Indications for Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement at a Quaternary Care Medical Center.

This study investigated physician compliance with indications for inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement according to the 2012 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the 2011 Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) guidelines. A retrospective medical record review of 231 retrievable IVC filters placed between August 15, 2016, and December 28, 2017, at a large urban academic medical center. Guideline compliance to the 2012 ACCP and the 2011 SIR guidelines, and indications for IVC filter placements were assessed through an adjudication protocol. Filter retrieval and complication rates were also examined. Compliance to guidelines was low (60.2% for ACCP; 74.0% for SIR), especially for non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients (ICU 74.6% vs non-ICU 54.8%, p=0.007 for ACCP; ICU 82.5% vs non-ICU 70.8%, p=0.092 for SIR). After adjudication, 8.2% (19/231) of filters were considered non-indicated but reasonable, 17.7% (41/231) non-indicated and unreasonable, and 13.9% (32/231) SIR-indicated but not ACCP-indicated. The most common indication was venous thromboembolism with contraindication to anticoagulation. The most common reasons for non-compliance were distal deep venous thrombosis with contraindication to anticoagulation (19/60, 31.6%) and clot burden (19/60, 31.6%). One-year filter retrieval and 90-day complication rates were 32.0% (74/231) and 6.1% (14/231), respectively. Compliance to established guidelines was low. Reasons for non-compliance included limitations or discrepancies in guidelines, as well as non-evidence-based filter placements. Despite increasing utilization of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, guideline compliance for IVC filter placement among providers is unclear. The results of this study indicate that physician compliance to established guidelines is poor, especially in non-intensive-care-unit patients. Noncompliance stems from non-evidence-based filter placement as well as differences and limitations in guidelines. Avoiding non-indicated IVC filter placement and consolidation of guidelines may significantly improve guideline compliance. The critical insights gained from this study can help promote judicious use of IVC filters and highlight the role of venous thromboembolism experts in navigating complex cases and nuances of guidelines.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines Recommendations, Retrieval Rates, and Filter Complications in a Tertiary Hospital.

The present study evaluated the adherence to guideline recommendations regarding the indication for inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) placement, retrieval rates, complications, thrombotic recurrences, and mortality. Patients in whom an IVCF was placed between 2015 and 2020 in a tertiary hospital were retrospectively included. We considered absolute indication of IVCF placement if all the guidelines evaluated agreed on the indication, relative indication if only some guidelines recommended it and without indication if none of the evaluated guidelines recommended it. From the 185 patients included; 47% had an absolute indication, 15% a relative indication, and 38% had no indication. Filter-associated complications and non-removal rates were 12.4% and 41%, respectively. Venous thromboembolism recurrence rate was 17.8%, being filter-associated complications (24.2 vs 9.8%, P = .02) and thrombosis of the inferior cava or iliac veins (12.1 vs 2.6%, P = .03) more frequent in this group. The mortality rate was 40%, with higher mortality risk in patients with co-existing cancer. Previous major bleeding, filter-associated complications, and mortality were associated with a major risk of non-removal. In conclusion, the adherence to guidelines regarding the indication of IVCF placement is still low and IVCF complications are not negligible. This fact is of special concern in the elderly, comorbid, and cancer patients.

Luminal Changes in Patients with Inferior Vena Cava Filters and Development of Chronic Venous Disease

This study aimed to analyze the luminal changes in the iliocaval veins and their effects on the development of signs and symptoms of chronic venous disease manifesting from inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement. This was a retrospective observations study; deidentified patients with an IVC filter placed with subsequent luminal changes were included. All patients had a computerized tomography (CT) scan with or without ultrasound and those who underwent an intervention for the obstruction had also venography and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). The diameter of IVC and iliac veins was measured from the near wall to the far wall. IVC diameters measured less than 12mm were considered to be retractions. Signs and symptoms of chronic venous disease were obtained from patient charts and were reported according to the highest CEAP class. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, presenting diameter changes as a mean with standard deviation and a range of diameters included. Overall, 76 patients were included in this study, of whom 66 had occlusion of the IVC or the Iliac veins. Luminal changes of the IVC were observed in all patients. A total of 58 patients presented with chronic post-thrombotic changes in both the IVC and iliac veins. There were 4 patients that had a luminal reduction with no filling defects or post-thrombotic changes. Average IVC diameter and iliac vein diameter was measured to be 8.3±1.4mm and 4.6±1.4mm, respectively. Patients most frequently presented with extremity swelling, but other signs such as venous ulceration or skin damage were observed. Permanent luminal changes of the IVC and iliac veins were observed as a result of IVC filter placement and such patients commonly present with signs and symptoms of chronic venous disease. Together, with other known filter complications, these observations add more reasons for a timely retrieval. When such changes occur, patients' appropriate symptoms can be successfully treated. The permanent changes made by filter placement in the IVC and iliac veins further support filter retrieval in a timely fashion. The luminal changes induced by filter placement should be recognized early, particularly in symptomatic patients who can be safely treated with endovenous procedures.