Non-permanent inferior vena cava filters for prophylaxis and treatment of lower limb venous thromboembolism

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare our recent clinical experience with temporary inferior vena cava (IVC) filters (TF) and retrievable IVC filters (RF).

Materials and methods: Patients who received TF or RF implantation between October 2002 and May 2009 were studied. The early clinical outcomes between the 2 groups were compared.

Results: Nonpermanent IVC filters were placed in 119 patients (34 in TF and 85 in RF). Retrieval of RF and removal of TF were successful in 98.7% and 100%, respectively. The incidence of filter-related complications for TF was significantly higher than for RF (26.5% vs 3.5%; P = .0004). However, no symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) was observed during filter placement.

Conclusion: TF and RF provided similar protection from PE. We prefer RF because they can be left in permanently if it is impossible to remove or retrieve the filter for some reason.