• Eric D McLoney, Venkatesh P Krishnasamy, Jordan C Castle, Xiangyu Yang, and Gregory Guy.
• Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University Medical Center, 395 W. 12th Ave., Columbus, OH 43210. Electronic address: emcloney@gmail.com.
• J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013 Nov 1;24(11):1723-9.

PurposeTo evaluate and compare the rates of complications on follow-up computed tomography (CT) studies of patients with Celect, Günther Tulip, and Greenfield inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.Materials And MethodsRetrospective review of CT studies obtained 0-1,987 days after infrarenal placement of an IVC filter identified 255 Celect, 160 Tulip, and 50 Greenfield filters. Follow-up CT studies were independently evaluated by two observers for IVC perforation, contact with adjacent organs, and filter fracture. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with higher rates of IVC perforation, including age, IVC diameter, sex, and history of malignancy.ResultsIVC perforation was observed in 126 of 255 Celect filters (49%) with a mean follow-up of 277 days, 69 of 160 Tulip filters (43%) with a mean follow-up of 437 days, and one of 50 Greenfield filters (2%) with a mean follow-up of 286 days. A significantly higher IVC perforation rate was observed in women (45.5%) compared with men (30.8%; P = .002) and in patients with a history of malignancy (43.7%) compared with patients with no history of malignancy (29.9%; P < .001). Filter fracture was rare, observed in two of 255 Celect filters (0.8%), one of 160 Tulip filters (0.6%), and none of 50 Greenfield filters.ConclusionsNo significant difference was observed in IVC perforation rate between Celect and Tulip filters. Greenfield filters had a significantly lower rate of IVC perforation than Celect and Tulip filters. Higher IVC perforation rates were observed in women and patients with a history of malignancy.© SIR, 2013.

43 keywords...

hide…