Retrospective Review of 120 Celect Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrievals: Experience at a Single Institution

Imaging Institute, Section of Interventional Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Journal of vascular and interventional radiology: JVIR (Impact Factor: 2.41). 12/2012; 23(12):1557-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2012.08.016
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate retrospectively the safety and retrievability of the Celect IVC filter.
All patients undergoing Celect filter placement and retrieval during the period 2007-2012 were assessed for complications and retrievability.
Of 620 patients who underwent Celect filter placement, 120 presented for removal. The indwelling time in these patients was 158.1 days±103.0 (range, 2-518 d). There were 106 filters (88.3%) removed; 14 filters were left in situ for the following reasons: filter embedment (n=6), caval occlusion (n=3), retained thrombus (n=2), large floating thrombus in IVC (n=2), or tilt >15° (n=1). With filters in place, five patients developed new pulmonary embolism (PE), and two others presented with severe abdominal pain. The available 115 pairs of placement and removal cavagrams suggested limb penetration in 99 cases (86.1%), intracaval migration >2 cm in 5, secondary tilt >15° in 8, filter deformity in 10, retained thrombus within filters in 12, and IVC occlusion in 3. Among 38 available computed tomography (CT) scans, 9 scans (24%) showed asymptomatic limb penetration to the duodenum (n=6), aortic wall (n=2), or kidney (n=1). No filter fracture was found.
This study showed a high penetration rate for Celect IVC filters, including penetrations that were symptomatic or involved adjacent structures. Penetration appears to correlate with indwelling time, suggesting that the filter should be removed as soon as PE protection is no longer indicated. Although most of the filters were removed, 5.8% of retrievals were unsuccessful because of technical failure.

Download full-text


Available from: Weiping Wang, Sep 28, 2015
668 Reads
  • Journal of vascular and interventional radiology: JVIR 12/2012; 23(12):1564-5. DOI:10.1016/j.jvir.2012.10.003 · 2.41 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: With the introduction of retrievable inferior vena cava filters, the number being placed for protection from pulmonary embolism is steadily increasing. Despite this increased usage, the true incidence of complications associated with inferior vena cava filters is unknown. This article reviews the known complications associated with these filters and suggests recommendations and techniques for inferior vena cava filter removal.
    Seminars in Vascular Surgery 03/2013; 26(1):23-8. DOI:10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2013.04.005 · 1.38 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IMPORTANCE Retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters were designed to provide temporary protection from pulmonary embolism, sparing patients from long-term complications of permanent filters. However, many retrievable IVC filters are left in place indefinitely. OBJECTIVES To review the medical records of patients with IVC filters to determine patient demographics and date of and indication for IVC filter placement, as well as complications, follow-up data, date of IVC filter retrieval, and use of anticoagulant therapy. DESIGN AND SETTING A retrospective review of IVC filter use between August 1, 2003, and February 28, 2011, was conducted at Boston Medical Center, a tertiary referral center with the largest trauma center in New England. PARTICIPANTS In total, 978 patients. Twenty six patients were excluded from the study because of incomplete medical records. INTERVENTION Placement of retrievable IVC filter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES In total, 952 medical records were included in the analysis. RESULTS Of 679 retrievable IVC filters that were placed, 58 (8.5%) were successfully removed. Unsuccessful retrieval attempts were made in 13 patients (18.3% of attempts). Seventy-four venous thrombotic events (7.8% of 952 patients included in the study) occurred after IVC filter placement, including 25 pulmonary emboli, all of which occurred with the IVC filter in place. Forty-eight percent of venous thrombotic events were in patients without venous thromboembolism at the time of IVC filter placement, and 89.4% occurred in patients not receiving anticoagulants. Many IVC filters placed after trauma were inserted when the highest bleeding risk had subsided, and anticoagulant therapy may have been appropriate. While many of these filters were placed because of a perceived contraindication to anticoagulants, 237 patients (24.9%) were discharged on a regimen of anticoagulant therapy. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE Our research suggests that the use of IVC filters for prophylaxis and treatment of venous thrombotic events, combined with a low retrieval rate and inconsistent use of anticoagulant therapy, results in suboptimal outcomes due to high rates of venous thromboembolism.
    JAMA Internal Medicine 03/2013; 173(7):1-5. DOI:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.343 · 13.12 Impact Factor
Show more