• Colin P Cantwell, Jason Pennypacker, Harjit Singh, Leslie B Scorza, Peter N Waybill, and Frank C Lynch.
• Heart and Vascular Institute, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA.
• J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009 Sep 1; 20 (9): 1193-9.

PurposeTo compare the technical success of the Recovery and G2 filters as retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.Materials And MethodsRecovery (n = 128) and G2 (n = 113) filters were placed in the IVCs of 241 patients with the intent of retrieval. The referring physician and/or patient were contacted at 6-month intervals to ensure filter retrieval when indicated. The Recovery and G2 filter groups were compared regarding technical success of filter placement, technical success of attempted retrieval, filter tilt, filter migration, filter fracture, and filter efficacy.ResultsFilter placement was technically successful in 95% of Recovery filters (n = 122) and 100% of G2 filters (n = 113). Recovery filter retrieval was attempted in 55% of patients (n = 71) at a mean of 228 days (range, 0-838 d) after filter placement. G2 filter retrieval was attempted in 55% of patients (n = 62) at a mean of 230 days (range, 7-617 d) after filter placement. Technical success rates of filter retrieval were 94% (n = 67) and 97% (n = 60) in the Recovery and G2 filter groups, respectively. The G2 filter group had significantly fewer cases of (i) filter tilt at placement, (ii) filter tilt at attempted retrieval, and (iii) filter fracture than the Recovery filter group. In the G2 filter group, there was a significantly higher technical success rate of filter placement and there were more cases of caudal filter migration than in the Recovery filter group.ConclusionsCompared with the Recovery filter, the G2 filter is associated with significantly less filter fracture and tilt, greater technical success of filter placement, and more caudal filter migration.

21 keywords...

hide…