Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May 12;4(3):139-142.
doi: 10.1016/j.jimed.2021.05.001. eCollection 2021 Aug.

Comparative outcomes of Inferior Vena Cava filters placed at bedside using digital radiography versus conventional fluoroscopy

John A Walker  1 , Matthew Milam  2 , Jorge E Lopera  1
Affiliations

Comparative outcomes of Inferior Vena Cava filters placed at bedside using digital radiography versus conventional fluoroscopy

John A Walker et al. J Interv Med. .

Abstract

Purpose: To retrospectively assess the outcomes of Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filters placed in critically ill patients in the ICU at bedside using digital radiograph (DR) guidance with previous cross-sectional imaging for planning, compared to IVC filters placed by conventional fluoroscopy (CF).

Method and materials: The cohort consisted of 129 IVC filter placements; 48 placed at bedside and 81 placed conventionally from July 2015 to September 2016. Patient demographics, indication, radiation exposures, access site, procedural duration, dwell time, and complications were identified by the EMR. IVC Filter positioning with measurements of tip to renal vein distance and lateral filter tilt were performed when cavograms or post placement CTs were available for review. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata IC 11.2.

Results: Technical success of the procedure was 100% in both groups. Procedural duration was longer at the bedside lasting 14.5 +/- 10.2 versus 6.7 +/- 6.0 ​min (p<0.0001). The bedside DR group had a median radiation exposure of 25 ​mGy (15-35) and the CF group had mean radiation exposure of 256.94 ​mGy +/- 158.6. There was no significant difference in distance of IVC tip to renal vein (p=0.31), mispositioning (p=0.59), degree of filter tilt (p=0.33), or rate of complications (p=0.65) between the two groups.

Conclusion: IVCF placement at the bedside using DR is comparable to CF with no statistical difference in outcomes based on IVCF positioning, degree of lateral tilt or removal issues. It decreased radiation dose, but with overall increased procedural time.

Keywords: Deep venous thrombosis; Inferior vena cava filters; Pulmonary embolism.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None of the authors has a conflict of interest related to this research .

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of study selection.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Distance (upper) and tilt (lower) measurements by cavography (left) and CT (right) imaging.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Goldhaber S.Z., Visani L., De Rosa M. Acute pulmonary embolism: clinical outcomes in the international cooperative pulmonary embolism registry (ICOPER) The Lancet (British edition) 1999;353:1386–1389. - PubMed
    1. Dalen J.E., Alpert J.S. Natural history of pulmonary embolism. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1975;17:259–270. - PubMed
    1. Caplin D.M., Nikolic B., Kalva S.P. Quality improvement guidelines for the performance of inferior vena cava filter placement for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. J Vasc Intervent Radiol. 2011;22:1499–1506. - PubMed
    1. Kaufman J.A., Kinney T.B., Streiff M.B. Guidelines for the use of retrievable and convertible vena cava filters: report from the society of interventional radiology multidisciplinary consensus conference. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2006;2:200–212. - PubMed
    1. Minet C., Potton L., Bonadona A. Venous thromboembolism in the ICU: main characteristics, diagnosis and thromboprophylaxis. Crit Care. 2015;19:287–289. - PMC - PubMed