• J Trauma · Jun 2001

    Comparative Study

    Accurate deployment of vena cava filters: comparison of intravascular ultrasound and contrast venography.

    • D W Ashley, T C Gamblin, S T Burch, and M M Solis.
    • Department of Surgery, Mercer University School of Medicine and the Medical Center of Central Georgia, 777 Hemlock Street, Macon, GA 31208, USA.
    • J Trauma. 2001 Jun 1; 50 (6): 975-81.

    BackgroundThe increasing use of vena cava filters by trauma surgeons has led to reports of filter placement using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Although attractive because of its ease of use and elimination of contrast and radiation, no studies have examined the accuracy of filter placement by IVUS as compared with contrast venography (CV). The purpose of this study was to compare the anatomic information obtained by both techniques during filter placement.MethodsTwenty-one patients meeting trauma service criteria for filter placement were studied (11 women and 10 men; mean age, 46.8 years). All procedures were performed in the operating room by trauma surgeons. Vascular access was obtained by percutaneous placement of an 8 French sheath in the right femoral vein. CV, IVUS, and bilateral selective renal venography were performed before deployment of a Greenfield filter. Localization and diameter measurements were made in reference to a radiopaque ruler placed on the patient's abdomen. We chose the "best location" for filter deployment as 1 cm below the junction of the lowest renal vein and the vena cava. Measurements by CV and IVUS were compared with the "gold standard" of selective renal venography.ResultsAs compared with selective renal venography, the difference between best location by CV and IVUS was 16.3 +/- 13.8 mm and 3.7 +/- 5.6 mm, respectively (p = 0.001). In four cases (19%) the CV missed best location by 3 cm or more. CV overestimated the diameter of the vena cava in all cases. Average vena cava diameter was 26.4 +/- 3.3 mm by venography and 20.6 +/- 3.1 mm by IVUS (p < 0.0001). CV incorrectly identified four patients as having vena cava diameters too large (>2.8 cm) for the placement of a Greenfield filter. The two renal vein anomalies (one double left renal vein and one absent left renal vein) were correctly diagnosed by IVUS.ConclusionIVUS is a more accurate method of localizing the renal veins and measuring vena cava diameter for placement of vena cava filters than contrast venography.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…