• M F Given, B C McDonald, P Brookfield, L Niggemeyer, T Kossmann, D K Varma, K R Thomson, and S M Lyon.
• Department of Radiology, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Vic, Australia. givenmark@hotmail.com
• J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2008 Oct 1;52(5):452-7.

AbstractThe aim of our study was to assess our experience with the retrievable Gunther Tulip (GT) inferior vena cava (IVC) filter, with regard to its insertion, efficacy, ease of placement and retrieval, and associated complications. Between November 2001 and October 2005, 322 GT filters were placed in 317 patients. Insertion indications included the following: pulmonary embolus (PE) prophylaxis in trauma patients (n = 232), PE prophylaxis in perioperative patients (n = 27), PE prophylaxis in moribund intensive care unit patients (n = 22), recent PE (n = 48), extensive deep venous thrombosis (n = 66), contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 63), anticoagulation complication (n = 8) and deep venous thrombosis with failed anticoagulation (n = 8). Some patients had more than one indication for caval filter placement. Two hundred and five attempted retrievals have been carried out, with 15 failures. Our successful retrieval rate is 92%. Nineteen filters were originally inserted permanently. There have been three minor complications associated with insertion and five with retrieval. The mean time from filter insertion to attempted retrieval was 76.95 days. The ideal filter implantation time gives the patient the benefit of PE protection, while avoiding the long-term risks associated with caval filters. Although GT retrieval times have lengthened considerably, our data suggest that this is at the expense of successful retrieval rates.

20 keywords...

hide…