Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Current Controversies in Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.
Kesselman, Andrew; Oo, Thein Hlaing; Johnson, Matthew; Stecker, Michael S; Kaufman, John; Trost, David.
  • Kesselman A; Department of Radiology, Division of Interventional Radiology, New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine, 525 E 68th St, Payson Pavilion 501, New York, NY 10065.
  • Oo TH; Section of Thrombosis and Benign Hematology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
  • Johnson M; Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
  • Stecker MS; Department of Radiology, Division of Angiography and Interventional Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
  • Kaufman J; Dotter Department of Interventional Radiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.
  • Trost D; Department of Radiology, Division of Interventional Radiology, New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine, 525 E 68th St, Payson Pavilion 501, New York, NY 10065.
AJR Am J Roentgenol ; 216(3): 563-569, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1133848
ABSTRACT
Despite inferior vena cava (IVC) filter practice spanning over 50 years, interventionalists face many controversies in proper utilization and management. This article reviews recent literature and offers opinions on filter practices. IVC filtration is most likely to benefit patients at high risk of iatrogenic pulmonary embolus during endovenous intervention. Filters should be used selectively in patients with acute trauma or who are undergoing bariatric surgery. Retrieval should be attempted for perforating filter and fractured filter fragments when imaging suggests feasibility and favorable risk-to-benefit ratio. Antibiotic prophylaxis should be considered when removing filters with confirmed gastrointestinal penetration. Anticoagulation solely because of filter presence is not recommended except in patients with active malignancy. Anticoagulation while filters remain in place may decrease long-term filter complications in these patients. Patients with a filter and symptomatic IVC occlusion should be offered filter removal and IVC reconstruction. Physicians implanting filters may maximize retrieval by maintaining physician-patient relationships and scheduling follow-up at time of placement. Annual follow-up allows continued evaluation for removal or replacement as appropriate. Advanced retrieval techniques increase retrieval rates but require caution. Certain cases may require referral to experienced centers with additional retrieval resources. The views expressed should help guide clinical practice, future innovation, and research.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Pulmonary Embolism / Vena Cava, Inferior / Vena Cava Filters / Prosthesis Implantation / Venous Thrombosis / Device Removal Type of study: Cohort study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Reviews Topics: Long Covid Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Year: 2021 Document Type: Article

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Pulmonary Embolism / Vena Cava, Inferior / Vena Cava Filters / Prosthesis Implantation / Venous Thrombosis / Device Removal Type of study: Cohort study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Reviews Topics: Long Covid Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Year: 2021 Document Type: Article