ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare the technical success of filter retrieval in Denali, Tulip, and Option inferior vena cava filters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of Denali, Gunther Tulip, and Option IVC filters was conducted. Retrieval failure rates, fluoroscopy time, sedation time, use of advanced retrieval techniques, and filter-related complications that led to retrieval failure were recorded. RESULTS: There were 107 Denali, 43 Option, and 39 Tulip filters deployed and removed with average dwell times of 93.5, 86.0, and 131 days, respectively. Retrieval failure rates were 0.9% for Denali, 11.6% for Option, and 5.1% for Tulip filters (Denali vs. Option p = 0.018; Denali vs. Tulip p = 0.159; Tulip vs. Option p = 0.045). Median fluoroscopy time for filter retrieval was 3.2 min for the Denali filter, 6.75 min for the Option filter, and 4.95 min for the Tulip filter (Denali vs. Option p < 0.01; Denali vs. Tulip p < 0.01; Tulip vs. Option p = 0.67). Advanced retrieval techniques were used in 0.9% of Denali filters, 21.1% in Option filters, and 10.8% in Tulip filters (Denali vs. Option p < 0.01; Denali vs. Tulip p < 0.01; Tulip vs. Option p < 0.01). DISCUSSION: Filter retrieval failure rates were significantly higher for the Option filter when compared to both the Denali and Tulip filters. Retrieval of the Denali filter required significantly less amount of fluoroscopy time and use of advanced retrieval techniques when compared to both the Option and Tulip filters. The findings of this study indicate easier retrieval of the Denali and Tulip IVC filters when compared to the Option filter.
