• Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg · Sep 2013

    Technical and patient-related characteristics associated with challenging retrieval of inferior vena cava filters.

    • E D Avgerinos, J Bath, J Stevens, B McDaniel, L Marone, E Dillavou, J S Cho, M S Makaroun, and R A Chaer.
    • Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15217, USA.
    • Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013 Sep 1; 46 (3): 353-9.

    ObjectiveTo identify patient-related and device-specific predictors of challenging and failed inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrievals.MethodsRetrospective single center review of consecutive retrievable IVC filters placed between 2004 and 2009. Retrieval was defined as challenging when it was unsuccessful owing to reported technical failure or when adjunctive endovascular maneuvers or access sites were recruited. Data regarding patient- and filter-specific information were collected. Logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of the reported outcomes. Statistical significance was set at p < .05.ResultsFour hundred and one patients underwent retrievable IVC filter placement-the majority indicated for prophylaxis (67%). Two hundred and fifty-nine retrievals were attempted and 237 filters were successfully retrieved (overall retrieval rate: 59.1%). Eleven out of 259 (4.2%) attempts were aborted owing to significant thrombus within the filter and 11 (4.2%) were technically unsuccessful. In 142 patients no attempt for filter retrieval was made-the major reason being physician oversight (44.3%). Thirty-eight out of 248 (15.3%) non-aborted filter retrievals were recorded as challenging. Failed retrievals were predicted by prolonged dwell time (96.9 ± 111.9 vs. 29.5 ± 25.1 days, odds ratio [OR] 1.034, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.016-1.053, p < .001), therapeutic indication (OR 5.197, 95% CI 1.200-22.511, p = .028), and filter wall apposition (OR 11.857, 95% CI 2.069-67.968, p = .006). Challenging retrievals were predicted by dwell time (51.1 ± 69.8 vs. 29.1 ± 24.5 days, OR 1.017, 95% CI 1.005-1.029, p = .007), filter tilt (OR 2.607, 95% CI 1.045-6.508, p = .040) and filter wall apposition (OR 6.149, 95% CI 2.398-15.763, p = <.001).ConclusionsPhysician oversight leads to poor IVC filter retrieval rates. Retrievals can be challenging or fail when the dwell time is >50 days and >90 days, respectively, and when the filter hook apposes the caval wall. Filter tilt increases retrieval difficulty but not failure rates.Copyright © 2013 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Free 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…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.