Superior Vena Cava Filters Research Articles

Superior vena cava filter placement over existing central venous lines: Is line removal necessary?

To evaluate the technical feasibility and clinical safety of superior vena cava (SVC) filter placement over preexisting central venous lines (CVLs) in 23 patients who had upper extremity deep venous thrombosis with contraindications to anticoagulation. A retrospective review of the images and electronic medical records of 23 patients from 2008 to 2018 with SVC filters placed over an existing central venous line was performed in a single tertiary medical center. Twenty-one filters were placed over smaller lines (<8 Fr), and two were placed over hemodialysis catheters. Venograms before and after filter placement were compared to detect any evidence of line displacement or entrapment. Medical records were reviewed to determine whether there was any difficulty during line removal. In two of five patients with dual lines, significant line displacement was noted in the left-sided lines, both lines were later removed without complications. In one patient with a hemodialysis catheter, the filter was deployed over the tip of the catheter resulting in the entrapment of one of the legs of the filter within a side hole of the line. Fourteen patients had their lines later removed 3 days to 3 months after filter placement without reported problems. Nine patients had their CVLs left in place until the patient's death or discharge to a long-term facility. SVC filter placement over preexisting CVLs seems to be technically feasible and clinically safe in patients with <8-Fr CVLs. However, placement of the filters over hemodialysis catheters can result in leg entrapment.

A single center 10-year clinical experience with superior vena cava retrievable filters.

To report a 10-year clinical experience with superior vena cava (SVC) retrievable filters. A retrospective review of patients with SVC filters was performed between 2008 and 2018 in a single tertiary medical center. Patient demographics, indications for filter placement, type of filter placed, and clinical evolution were recorded. Complications during placement, retrieval, and follow-up were determined. Fifty patients ages 17-89 years (average 54) underwent SVC retrievable filter placement. Main indication for filter placement was deep venous thrombosis of the major upper extremity and/or internal jugular veins with contraindications to anticoagulation. Complications during placement included inadvertent filter placement in the right brachiocephalic vein in two patients, another patient had a leg of the filter entrapped in the tip of a hemodialysis catheter that required filter reposition and line exchange. Thirteen patients had attempted retrieval with 12 filters successfully removed 7-420 days after placement (mean 170). On follow-up images available in 24 patients, 13 filters were noted to be significantly tilted and 10 filters had evidence of leg penetration. No other serious late complications were noted. The use of retrievable SVC filters in patients with upper extremity DVT is highly questionable. There is a high incidence of filter malposition, filter tilting, and leg penetration.

Solving the Chinese Finger Trap: A Novel Method for Simultaneous Superior and Inferior Vena Cava Filter Removal.

As many as 130,000 inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are placed annually, with as few as 5,000 retrieved a year for patients who no longer require protection from deep vein thrombosis. Superior vena cava (SVC) filter placement is an even less common occurrence and is usually reserved for special cases. Furthermore, the simultaneous placement of IVC and SVC filters is most rare, whereas simultaneous IVC and SVC filter removal has not been reported in the literature. We present a case and a novel technique for successful concurrent removal of IVC and SVC filters in a patient.

IMPLANTATION OF SUPERIOR VENA CAVA FILTERS

Abstract The purpose of this review is to evaluate the results of superior vena cava filters placement in order to prevent pulmonary embolism associated with upper extremities deep vein thrombosis. The central venous catheter, malignancy and lower extremities deep venous thrombosis are main risk factors of upper extremities deep venous thrombosis. The placement of the superior vena cava filter is a safe and effective method for preventing pulmonary embolism in patients with acute upper extremities deep vein thrombosis where therapeutic anticoagulation is contraindicated or appeared to be ineffective.

Safety and Feasibility of Temporary Superior Vena Cava Filter Combined with Balloon Dilatation and Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Catheter-Related Thrombosis

The objective was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of temporary superior vena cava (SVC) filter combined with balloon dilatation and catheter-directed thrombolysis for the treatment of catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) caused by implanted ports. Between February 2014 and October 2016, 13 patients with implanted port-related CRT in internal jugular vein, brachiocephalic vein, and/or subclavian vein were treated by temporary SVC filter, balloon dilatation, and catheter-directed thrombolysis. Clinical data were retrospectively analyzed with respect to clinical characteristics, SVC filter placement and retrieval, balloon dilatation, and catheter-directed thrombolysis. Filter placement and retrieval, balloon dilatation, and catheter-directed thrombolysis were successful in all patients with complete patency of the suffered vessels. No complications such as local infection, filter migration, bleeding, and pulmonary embolism were found. Based on the small number of patients, it appears that temporary SVC filter combined with balloon dilatation and catheter-directed thrombolysis is a safe and effective method for the treatment of CRT associated with malfunction of the implanted ports and complete obstruction of affected veins. Further studies are required to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness and complications compared to conventional therapy.

Retrievable inferior vena cava filters in geriatric trauma: Is there an age bias?

BackgroundTrauma patients are at increased risk for developing venous thromboembolic (VTE) disease. The EAST (Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma) practice management guidelines identified risk factors for VTE, as well as indications for prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (IVCF). In a 2009 study, our institution found a 26% retrieval rate for IVCF. Lack of retrieval was most consistently due to lack of follow-up. Our study is a follow-up analysis for retrieval rate of IVCF, since the formation of a geriatric trauma service. We anticipated that geriatric trauma patients would have a lower rate of IVCF retrieval compared to the general trauma patient. MethodsOur study population consisted of trauma patients admitted from January 2008 to August 2013, with documented VTE or high risk for VTE with contraindication to anticoagulation. Inclusion criteria: IVCF placed in trauma patients. Exclusion criteria: permanent filters, retrievable filters placed permanently, non-trauma patients, superior vena cava filters and patients who died before discharge. ResultsDuring the study period, 160 trauma patients had an IVCF placed, of which 147 survived and were discharged. Of those patients, 66% (97/147) were planned for retrieval. Overall, the retrieval rate was 34% (33/97). Following age categorization, rates were 47% (30/64) and 9% (3/33) for those <65 and >/=65 years old, respectively. Applying Fisher’s Exact Test to a crosstab of planned retrieval by age category yielded a statistically significant difference, p<0.0005 at alpha=0.05. In the geriatric population with IVCFs not retrieved, 23% (7/30) died and 67% (20/30) were lost to follow-up. ConclusionIVCF plays a critical role in the management of trauma patients with VTE, particularly the geriatric population. Since our 2009 study, we have improved nearly ten percentage points (26% to 34%); however, we exposed an age bias with retrieval rate being lower in patients >/=65 compared to those <65 (9% vs. 47%).

Superior vena cava (SVC) filters placed over central lines – analysis of line trapping and difficulties with line retrieval: an in-vitro experimental study

Placement of superior vena cava (SVC) filters has been shown to be both safe and effective in preventing symptomatic pulmonary embolism in patients with upper extremity deep venous thrombosis that have contraindications to anticoagulation therapy. In many patients, existing central lines pose a challenge to SVC filter placement due to the theoretical risk of line displacement and/or entrapment. To assess the risk of catheter entrapment by filter legs during SVC filter deployment and the risk of subsequent filter migration during catheter removal. A model was created by placing a 22 mm vascular graft inside a plastic tube and submerged in a warm saline bath. Five types of filters were deployed under fluoroscopic guidance over different types of central lines of varying calibers (5-14 Fr). Each filter was deployed five times over each type of central line. The positioning of the legs of the filters in relationship to the central lines was studied by fluoroscopic and direct inspection. The lines were then removed under fluoroscopic guidance noting any line trapping, migration, and/or tilting of the filters. Movement of the lines during filter expansion was commonly seen after deployment of all filters with varying frequencies. During line removal slight resistance was encountered with the Celect filter (10%) and the Option filter (5%), while significant resistance was only encountered when using the OptEase filter (20%). Filter migration was only observed when the OptEase filter was deployed over large (>10 Fr) caliber lines (10%). When SVC filters are placed over existing central lines, the risk of catheter entrapment is very low in this in-vitro model. Filter migration during line retrieval was only observed when the OptEase filter was placed over >10 Fr caliber lines.

Fatal Pulmonary Embolism in a Patient with Thromboembolism of the Internal Jugular Vein after Liver Transplant

A patient with acute liver failure and thromboembolism of the internal jugular vein subsequently had a massive pulmonary embolism and died 25 days after orthotopic liver transplant. The primary cause of death was massive pulmonary embolus. This case report highlights the need for clinicians to be aware that fatal embolic events can occur in liver transplant recipients, even when routine prophylactic procedures are implemented. The benefits and risks of invasive strategies, including placement of superior vena cava filters, should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Management of Deep Vein Thrombosis of the Upper Extremity

Case 1: A 34-year-old previously healthy male office manager was admitted with acute onset of heaviness, pain, and functional impairment of his right arm. The arm was cyanotic and massively swollen (Figure 1). For the past weeks, he reported transient paresthesia of his right arm during overhead activities and was unable to perform repetitive or strenuous arm exercise. He had a fracture of the right clavicle after a ski accident 5 years previously. The fracture was managed conservatively. There was no personal or family history of thrombosis. Conventional phlebography confirmed axillary and subclavian vein thrombosis (Figure 2, top), and treatment with intravenous unfractionated heparin was started. Figure 1. Clinical presentation of case 1 with massive swelling and cyanosis of the right arm (left). One day after pharmacomechanical thrombolysis, signs of thrombosis have markedly improved (right). Figure 2. Baseline digital subtraction venogram from case 1 with extensive filling defects in the axillary subclavian veins (top). Control venogram after 15 hours of pharmacomechanical thrombectomy confirmed resolution of filling defects and restored venous flow (middle). Positional venography obtained during abduction of the right arm confirmed the venous thoracic outlet syndrome with residual stenosis of the subclavian vein at the costoclavicular junction (white arrow, bottom). Case 2: A 55-year-old man with lung cancer presented with swelling, heaviness, and pain in his left arm 1 week after completion of chemotherapy administered via a left-sided indwelling central venous catheter. Axillary and subclavian vein thrombosis was confirmed by ultrasonography. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was initiated, and the catheter was removed 3 days later because it was no longer functional. At 1 week, pain and functional impairment had not improved, and the circumference of the left upper arm had increased by 2 cm. Case 3: A 65-year-old woman with metastatic ovarian cancer presented with swelling of the face and both arms, headache, …

Vena Cava Filter Practices of a Regional Vascular Surgery Society

Vena cava filter (VCF) use in the United States has increased dramatically with prophylactic indications for placement and the availability of low-profile retrievable devices, which are overtaking the filter market. We surveyed the practice patterns of a large group of vascular surgeons from a regional vascular surgery society to see whether they mirrored current national trends. A 17-question online VCF survey was offered to all members of the Southern Association of Vascular Surgery. The responses were analyzed using the χ(2) goodness of fit tests. Of the 276 members surveyed, 126 (46%) responded, with 118 (93%) indicating that they placed filters during their practice. Highly significant differences were identified with each question (at least P < 0.002). Regarding the inferior vena cava, the preferred permanent filters were the Greenfield (31%), the TrapEase (15%), the Vena Tech (5%), and a variety of retrievable devices (49%). Fifty percent of the respondents placed retrievable filters selectively; 26% always placed them; and 24% never did. Filters were placed for prophylactic indications <50% of the time by 63% of the respondents. Overall, retrievable filters (when not used as permanent filters) were removed <25% of the time by 64% of the respondents and <50% of the time by 78% of the respondents. The femoral vein was the preferred access site for 84% of the respondents. Major complications were few but included filter migration to the atrium (one), atrial perforation (one), abdominal pain requiring surgical filter removal (two), inferior vena cava thrombosis (12 vena cava thrombosis--4 due to TrapEase filters), strut fracture with embolization to heart or lungs (three Bard retrievable filters), and severe tilting precluding percutaneous retrieval and protection from pulmonary emboli (8 filters with severe tilt--7 of which were Bard). Of the respondents, 59% had never placed a superior vena cava filter, and 28% had placed five or fewer. Although VCF insertion overall appears safe, some complications are specific to biconical and certain retrievable filters. Given the low removal rate and lack of long-term experience with retrievable filters, routine use of these devices as permanent filters should be questioned. If used on a temporary basis, there should be a plan for filter removal at the time of implantation.

The Clinical Significance of Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheter-Related Deep Vein Thrombosis

Peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) are being increasingly utilized in hospitalized patients as alternatives to centrally inserted central venous catheters (CICVCs). However, concern exists over the risk of PICC-related large vein thrombosis (PRLVT). The incidence rate and significance of symptomatic PRLVT in critically ill patients admitted to the neurological intensive care unit (ICU) is not known. Retrospective descriptive study of consecutive PICCs placed in critically ill patients admitted to a tertiary care neurological ICU between March 2008 and February 2010. Symptomatic PRVLT was defined as an event that prompted Duplex ultrasound of the ipsilateral extremity in which an acute, proximal large vein thrombosis was confirmed in association with the PICC or confirmed within 5days of PICC removal. Incidence rate of PRLVT and catheter-related complications were calculated per "line" (catheter). Descriptive statistics were performed with two-sample, and t-tests for age and categorical variables were assessed by Chi-square test or Fishers exact test as appropriate Four hundred and seventy-nine lines were placed during the study period with 39 developing a symptomatic PRLVT (incidence rate=8.1%). Male gender was associated with development of a thrombosis (P=0.02), but size (P=0.21) and location of catheter were not (P=0.30). Median line dwell time was 12days (IQR 16) with a dwell time of 8days (IQR 9) until thrombosis diagnosis. Pulmonary embolus attributed to PRLVT occurred in 1.3% of line placements and 15% of symptomatic PRLVT. The majority of patients had their line removed. In addition, some patients also had anticoagulation initiated or a superior vena cava filter placed. Symptomatic PRLVT is not uncommon in critically ill patients admitted to the neurological ICU. Future research should focus on indentifying modifiable risk factors for PRLVT and on comparing major cumulative complication rates between PICCs and CICVCs.

Vena Cava Filter Insertion and the General Surgery Armamentarium: A 13-Year Experience

The prevention of pulmonary emboli has a long surgical history. Through the development of percutaneous technologies, vena cava filters (VCFs) are now commonly inserted by interventional radiologists. This study reviews our experience with VCFs inserted by general surgeons. We retrospectively reviewed data from our VCF performance improvement database, which is a prospective collection of the VCF experience of the Department of General Surgery from February 1996 to May 2009. Demographics, procedural information, and complications were recorded. Eight hundred fifty-five VCFs were inserted in 853 patients. The mean age was 42.0 years (range, 14 to 90 years). One hundred ninety-seven VCFs were placed in the operating room, and 658 were placed in the intensive care unit. Twelve VCFs were intentionally inserted in a suprarenal position, and four were placed in the superior vena cava. Two patients received both superior vena cava and inferior vena cava filters. Complications included deep vein thrombosis at the insertion site (n=16), vena cava thrombosis (n=9), post-VCF pulmonary embolism (n=2), and a ventricle perforation requiring operative repair (n=1). No deaths were attributed to the presence of a VCF. Overall insertion success was 99.8 per cent. In two patients, an inferior VCF could not be placed as a result of inferior vena cava occlusion with no safe "landing zone" for deployment. The placement of VCFs is a vital skill in the general surgery armamentarium. Our experience demonstrates that general surgeons can safely insert VCFs with minimal perioperative complications.

Iron-Oxide Nanoparticles as Magnetic Resonance Contrast Agents: Expanding Their Potential Beyond Iron Replacement Therapy.

Abstract 1998Poster Board I-1020Ferumoxytol (Feraheme™), an iron oxide nanoparticle, was approved as an iron replacement product for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in adult patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) (United States Food and Drug Administration, June 2009). Potential uses of ferumoxytol extend beyond the treatment of iron deficiency anemia and may have important implications for hematology-oncology. Following administration, iron oxide nanoparticles initially serve as blood pool agents which is an ideal characteristic for assessing blood volume and blood flow. Subsequently, because of their long plasma half-life and ability to target inflammatory cells in the central nervous system (CNS), these compounds serve as excellent anatomic imaging agents. We have given adult patients with malignant CNS tumors and other CNS inflammatory lesions, ferumoxytol (n = 68) and ferumoxytran-10 [Combidex™' (n = 97) as magnetic resonance (MR) contrast agents, on Institutional Review Board approved protocols. We hypothesize that iron oxide nanoparticles provide additional MR imaging information which may be beneficial in the differential diagnosis and in monitoring therapy in patients with CNS lesions. This report focuses on our experience with 16 patients with central nervous system lymphoma (CNSL). The patients underwent brain MR with gadolinium followed in 10 ± 9 days (mean ± SD) by MR with ferumoxytran-10 (2.6 mg/kg, intravenous [IV' over 30 min) (n = 11) or ferumoxytol (510 mg, IV bolus) (n = 5). Findings of interest include: 1) in 3 patients, MR with iron oxide nanoparticles showed additional areas of CNS enhancement when compared with MR with gadolinium; 2) in 2 patients, increased enhancement patterns with iron oxide nanoparticles were diagnostically useful in distinguishing lymphoma from non-lymphomatous inflammatory conditions; and 3) in 2 patients with histories of CKD and post-renal transplant lymphoproliferative disorder confined to the CNS, MR with ferumoxytol was used to monitor therapy, as this agent appears to avoid the risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF), which is associated with exposure to gadolinium-containing contrast agents. Of note, in 1 patient with thromboembolic complications during therapy, brain MR enhancement was seen approximately 5 weeks after ferumoxytol infusion. The enhancement was initially interpreted as a hemorrhagic brainstem event and led to insertion of a superior vena cava filter rather than anticoagulation. This is an example of MR alteration which generally resolves in 3 to 5 days following ferumoxytol, however in rare instances may persist for up to 3 months. In summary, in addition to their use as iron replacement agents in iron deficiency anemia, the use of iron oxide compounds as MR contrast agents compliment the use of gadolinium. These agents offer exciting potential in the differential diagnosis of CNS inflammatory lesions versus CNSL, in monitoring CNS therapy, and may provide dual benefit in patients with CKD by possibly eliminating the gadolinium-associated risk of NSF. Disclosures:Off Label Use: Feraheme is an iron replacement product indicated for the treatment of iron deficiency in adult patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Superior Vena Cava Perforation Following the Placement of a Superior Vena Cava Filter in Males Less than 60 Years of Age

Although the utility of the superior vena cava (SVC) filter remains controversial, the safety and efficacy of SVC filters in patients with upper extremity deep venous thrombosis in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated or ineffective have been well described. However, few complications have been reported. Herein we describe a series of three cases of SVC perforation in three young males following the placement of SVC filters. All three patients had deep venous thrombosis on upper extremity duplex ultrasonography and contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 1) or failure of anticoagulation (n = 2). Cardiac tamponade was demonstrated on transthoracic echocardiography in all three cases. The pericardial effusion was evacuated with either median sternotomy or pericardiocentesis in two cases. One of the patients died of cardiac arrest, and an autopsy showed aortic perforation in addition to the SVC perforation. This patient underwent chest compression following the cardiac arrest. One patient was lost to follow-up, and the other patient remained asymptomatic at the 1-year follow-up. This is the first case of SVC perforation that is associated with aortic perforation after the placement of an SVC filter. Owing to this occurrence, one has to be aware of these life-threatening complications when placing an SVC filter, especially in males less than 60 years of age.

Long-term Follow-up for Superior Vena Cava Filter Placement

The short-term effectiveness and safety placement of superior vena cava (SVC) filter in the treatment of upper extremity deep venous thrombosis in patients with contraindication to anticoagulation have been well documented. However, as opposed to the numerous reported experiences with inferior vena cava filter placement and its complications, there has been no documented long-term follow-up on SVC filter placement. We, therefore, reviewed our experience with SVC filter placement. A retrospective review was performed of the 154 cases of patients who underwent SVC filter placement between January 1994 and August 2005 at our institution. Seven additional patients had unsuccessful SVC filter placement due to widespread deep venous thrombosis. The data were evaluated for both insertion complications (pneumothorax, hemorrhage, filter misplacement) and long-term complications (pulmonary embolism, migration, caval occlusion). The follow-up included review of serial chest radiographs to evaluate for filter migration in patients who lived at least 60 days after filter insertion and had chest radiography performed (n = 40), patients' charts, clinic visits, and telephone contacts, hospital databases, city death records, and national databases. There were 69 males and 85 females with a mean age of 73.6 years (range, 16-96 years; +/-15.3 [SD] years). Follow-up ranged from 1 day to 3750 days (256.3 +/- 576 days [mean +/- SD]) and 5 patients were lost to follow-up. Of the 154 patients, 58 survived longer than 60 days with mean follow-up of 628.4 days. All SVC filters (TrapEase, n = 38; Greenfield, n = 116) were successfully deployed in the 154 patients. During the follow-up, 114 (74.0% mortality) of the patients died of chronic illness or from cancer complications. There were three cases of pericardial tamponade (1.9%), and one case of misplaced filter in innominate vein. There were no known cases of symptomatic pulmonary embolism, caval occlusion, pneumothorax, or filter migration. SVC filter placement is associated with a low incidence of complications with long-term follow-up. These data help to reaffirm the safety and effectiveness of SVC filter placement. However, SVC perforation in young males remains a significant issue.

Superior vena cava filters: hindsight, insight and foresight

Upper Extremity Deep Venous Thromboses (UEDVT) are encountered with increasing frequency as the use of central lines and catheters increases. Previously disregarded as benign they are now established to contribute to Pulmonary Embolism (PE) and death. Superior vena cava filters (SVC filters) have been shown to be safe and efficacious for prevention of UEDVT in case anti-coagulation is contraindicated. Compared to Inferior Vena Cava Filters (IVC Filters), data are scarce however and long-term, randomized studies are lacking. SVC filter insertion presents unique indications, contraindications, complications and technical challenges different from their IVC counterparts.

Guidelines on use of vena cava filters

Summary of key recommendations • VC filters are indicated to prevent pulmonary embolus(PE) in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE)who have a contraindication to anticoagulation (grade B,level III).• Anticoagulation should be considered in patients with aVC filter when a temporary contraindication to antico-agulant therapy is no longer present. Insufficient dataexists to support a recommendation that all filter recip-ients should be treated with indefinite anticoagulationregardless of their risk of recurrent thrombosis (grade C,level IV). The decision as to whether or not to introduceanticoagulant therapy should be based on the perceivedunderlying thrombotic risk of the condition and thelikelihood of anticoagulant therapy-related bleeding.• VC filters are not indicated in unselected patients withVTE who will receive conventional anticoagulant therapy(grade A, level Ib).• VC filter insertion may be considered in selected patientswith PE despite therapeutic anticoagulation. Alternativetreatment options, such as long-term high-intensity oralanticoagulant therapy [international normalised ratio(INR) target 3AE5] or low molecular weight heparin(LMWH), should be considered prior to VC filterplacement, particularly in patients with thrombophilicdisorders (e.g. antiphospholipid syndrome) or cancer(grade C, level IV).• VC filter insertion may be considered in pregnantpatients who have contraindications to anticoagulationor develop extensive VTE shortly before delivery (within2 weeks). Retrievable filters should be considered (gradeC, level IV).• Free-floating thrombus is not an indication for insertionof a VC filter (grade B, level III).• Thrombolysis is not an indication for filter insertion. If afilter is used a retrievable filter should be used if available(grade C, level IV).• VC filters should be considered in any pre-operativepatient with recent VTE (within 1 month) in whomanticoagulation must be interrupted. Retrievable VCfilters should be considered in this situation where atemporary contraindication to anticoagulation exists(grade C, level IV).• No particular filter appears superior to others. Removablefilters should be used, if available, for patients with ashort-term contraindication to anticoagulant therapy(e.g. approximately 2 weeks) (grade C, level IV).

Superior vena caval Greenfield filters: Indications, techniques, and results

This study assessed the clinical feasibility of placement of the titanium Greenfield filter within the superior vena cava (SVC) in patients with upper extremity deep venous thrombosis and evaluated the short-term results. During the past 14 months, we have encountered 6 patients who had upper extremity central venous thrombosis in whom anticoagulation was deemed either contraindicated or ineffective in preventing recurrent pulmonary embolism. All patients underwent percutaneous insertion of a Greenfield filter into the SVC for prophylaxis for pulmonary embolism. Two of these patients had already undergone insertion of an inferior vena cava filter and two other patients had simultaneous insertion of SVC and inferior vena caval filters. No complications such as filter migration, misplacement, excessive hemorrhage, or pneumothorax occurred. Two patients subsequently underwent uncomplicated insertion of a Swan-Ganz catheter despite the presence of the filter. Two patients died of unrelated causes without clinical evidence of complications related to the filter. During the follow-up period from 4 to 14 months, there was no clinical evidence of pulmonary embolism in the remaining four patients. This procedure can be performed safely and is effective for the prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with upper extremity venous thrombosis.

Upper Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis: Underdiagnosed and Potentially Lethal

The significance of upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT) has been minimized in comparison to iliofemoral thrombosis, likely due to the erroneous belief that subsequent pulmonary thromboembolism is rare. The possibility of pulmonary thromboembolism originating in the upper extremity veins must now be seriously considered with catheters and medical instrumentation being performed more commonly in accessing the central venous system. It has been incorrectly assumed that the risk of pulmonary embolism was low due to the abundant collateral flow, and thus lack of stasis around an upper extremity even with venous occlusion. However, several studies, including a recent prospective trial, concluded that pulmonary embolism is not a rare complication in upper extremity DVT. Significantly, when comparing all sources of secondary upper extremity DVT, catheter-related upper extremity DVT is at greatest risk of subsequent pulmonary thromboembolism. We present an illustrative case documenting extensive pulmonary embolization that occurred following insertion of a central venous catheter and subsequent thrombosis of the right subclavian and innominate veins. With absolute contraindications to thrombolytic and anticoagulation therapy, prevention of further embolization was achieved by percutaneous insertion of a superior vena cava filter.