• Frank C Lynch.
• Departments of Radiology, Surgery and Medicine, The Penn State Heart and Vascular Institute, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Penn State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA 17033, USA. flynch@hmc.psu.edu
• J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011 Nov 1; 22 (11): 1507-12.

PurposePatients who have undergone implantation of a retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter require continued follow-up to have the device removed when clinically appropriate and in a timely fashion to avoid potential long-term filter-related complications. The efficacy of a method for patient follow-up was evaluated based on a retrospective review of a single-institutional retrievable IVC filter experience.Materials And MethodsPatients with retrievable IVC filters were tracked via a prospectively collected database designed specifically for patient follow-up. Follow-up consisted of periodic review of the electronic medical record. Patients were contacted by mail (at regular intervals one or more times) when removal of the filter was deemed appropriate. A retrospective review of the ultimate fate of the first 1,127 retrievable IVC filters placed at a single institution was performed. Retrieval rates were compared with those seen in the initial experience, during which no structured follow-up was performed.ResultsOf 1,127 filters placed, 658 (58.4%) were removed. Filter removal or declaration of the device as permanent was achieved in 860 patients (76.3%). Filter removal, declaration of the device as permanent, or establishment of the need for continued follow-up was achieved in 941 patients (83.5%). Only 186 patients (16.5%) were lost to follow-up.ConclusionsThe follow-up method described in the present study resulted in a statistically significant difference (P < .001) in the likelihood of a patient returning for IVC filter removal compared with a lack of follow-up (59% vs 24%).Copyright © 2011 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

22 keywords...

hide…