ABSTRACT
Expanded indications for caval interruption and earlier diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis have resulted in increased use of transvenous caval interruption devices and have intensified the search for the ideal caval filter. The Vena Tech vena cava filter is a percutaneous, transvenous caval interruption device which was recently introduced in the United States. We reviewed our experience with this filter. During the period of September 1989 to July 1990, 41 patients underwent placement of the Vena Tech filter. Indications for filter insertion included deep venous thrombosis with a contraindication to anticogulation (61%), pulmonary embolism while on anticoagulant therapy (29%), and prophylaxis (10%). Insertion was accomplished percutaneously in 40 patients (98%) and via cutdown in one patient. Thirty-nine (95%) were placed from the right internal jugular vein and two (5%) from the right femoral vein. There were no deaths related to filter placement. Incomplete opening of the filter occurred in 8 patients (19%); however, the incidence of deployment problems decreased as our experience increased. Pulmonary embolism after filter placement occurred in one patient (2%). Duplex scan was obtained postoperatively in 15 patients (mean follow-up 120 days). The inferior vena cava was patent in all patients, although nonoccluding thrombus was identified in the filter in one patient. We conclude the Vena Tech filter is an effective device for caval interruption, is easily inserted, and is associated with minimal morbidity.
Subject(s)
Pulmonary Embolism/prevention & control , Vena Cava Filters , Anticoagulants , Contraindications , Equipment Design , Evaluation Studies as Topic , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Thrombophlebitis/complications , Thrombophlebitis/therapySubject(s)
Aortic Rupture/surgery , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Aorta, Abdominal/surgery , Aortic Rupture/mortality , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications , Survival RateABSTRACT
During a ten-year period (1969-1980), 106 grafts were implanted in the axillofemoral and axillobifemoral positions. This retrospective study is based on life table analysis of cumulative patency rates in both axillofemoral and axillobifemoral grafts, with and without thrombectomy. Dacron grafts were used exclusively from 1969 to 1979, and PTFE from 1979 to 1980. Cumulative patency for Dacron axillobifemoral grafts was 97 +/- 3% at 32 months (73 +/- 21% at 42 months). Patency in both unilateral and bifemoral grafts was significantly increased by thrombectomy. Dacron and PTFE axillobifemoral graft patency was not significantly different. Perioperative mortality was 8% in a group of patients whose survival rate at four years was only 50 +/- 10% from associated disease. Axillobifemoral grafting presents an alternative to aortoiliac reconstruction in elderly patients with severe associated disease in whom the risk of anatomic bypass is prohibitive.
