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
. 2022 Mar 5;5(1):15.
doi: 10.1186/s42155-022-00291-5.

A single center 9-year experience in IVC filter retrieval - the importance of an IVC filter registry

Mark Sheehan  1   2 , Kristopher Coppin  3   4 , Cormac O'Brien  3   4 , Andrew McGrath  4 , Mark Given  4 , Aoife Keeling  4 , Michael J Lee  3   4
Affiliations

A single center 9-year experience in IVC filter retrieval - the importance of an IVC filter registry

Mark Sheehan et al. CVIR Endovasc. .

Abstract

Background: To evaluate Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval practices over a 9-year period at an academic hospital with a prospectively maintained IVC filter registry.

Method: An IVC filter registry was maintained prospectively within our institution. We reviewed cases between August 2011 and June 2020, following filter status, retrieval plans, and eventual retrieval date. The validity of the database was cross referenced with a Picture Archiving and Communication System and patient records.

Results: Three hundred forty-three patients had IVC filters inserted. Three filter types were used, Celect (Cook Medical) in 189, Gunther Tulip (GT) (Cook Medical) in 65, ALN (ALN) in 89. 196 (57%) filters were retrieved, 108 (31.5%) were made permanent, 36 (10.5%) died before retrieval, and 3 (1%) were yet to be retrieved. Retrieval rates were 92.5% overall (86% for GT, 93% for Celect and 94.5% for ALN). The mean dwell time for successful retrieval was 59 days with the majority of insertions (85%) removed in under 100 days. Failed initial retrieval occurred in 23 patients, 10 (43%) were retrieved at second attempt, 13/23 filters remained in-situ and were deemed permanent.

Conclusion: The removal of IVC filters, when indication for insertion has past, is no longer the sole responsibility of the referring physician but also the responsibility of the Interventionalist. Our retrieval rates of 92.5% of eligible IVC filters highlights the value of maintaining a prospective IVC filter registry.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

None
Fig. 1
None
Fig. 2
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Heit JA, Spencer FA, White RH (2016) The epidemiology of venous thromboembolism. Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis. 2016;41(1):3–14 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jaberi A, Tao MJ, Eisenberg N, Tan K, Roche-Nagle G (2020) IVC filter removal after extended implantation periods. The surgeon: journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland. 2020;18(5):265-8 - PubMed
    1. Tse G, Cleveland T, Goode S (2017) Ten-year experience of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in a tertiary referral center. Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey). 2017;23(2):144-9 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sutphin PD, Reis SP, McKune A, Ravanzo M, Kalva SP, Pillai AK (2015) Improving inferior vena cava filter retrieval rates with the define, measure, analyze, improve, control methodology. Journal of vascular and interventional radiology: JVIR. 2015;26(4):491-8.e1 - PubMed
    1. REPIC Study Group (2005) Eight-year follow-up of patients with permanent vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism: the PREPIC (Prevention du Risque d’Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) randomized study. Circulation. 2005 19;112(3):416 – 22. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.512834 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources