Excimer Laser Sheath-Assisted Retrieval of "Closed-Cell" Design Inferior Vena Cava Filters.

Background Numerous reports have shown that inferior vena cava filters are associated with clinically significant adverse events. Complicating factors, such as caval incorporation, may lead to technical challenges at retrieval. The use of advanced techniques including the laser sheath have increased technical success rates; however, the data are limited on which filter types necessitate and benefit from its use. Methods and Results From October 2011 to September 2019, patients with inferior vena cava filter dwell times >6 months or with prior failed retrievals were considered for laser sheath-assisted retrieval. Standard and nonlaser advanced retrieval techniques were attempted first; if the filter could not be safely or successfully detached from the caval wall using these techniques, the laser sheath was used. Technical success, filter type, necessity for laser sheath application based on "open" versus "closed-cell" filter design, dwell times, and adverse events were evaluated. A total of 441 patients (216 men; mean age, 54 years) were encountered. Mean dwell times for all filters was 56.6 months, 54.4 among closed-cell filters and 58.5 among open-cell filters (P=0.63). Technical success of retrieval was 98%, with the laser sheath required in 143 cases (40%). Successful retrieval of closed-cell filters required laser sheath assistance in 60% of cases as compared with 7% of open-cell filters (odds ratio, 20.1; P<0.01). In closed-cell inferior vena cava filters, dwell time was significantly associated with need for laser, requiring it in 64% of retrievals with dwell times >6 months (P=0.01). One major adverse event occurred among laser sheath retrievals when a patient required a 2-day inpatient admission for a femoral access site hemorrhage. Conclusions Closed-cell filters may necessitate the use of the laser sheath for higher rates of successful and safe retrieval.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Past, Present, and Future.

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have existed as a treatment option for VTE for decades. Advances in medical technology have provided physicians with several options for devices that can be placed on either a permanent or temporary basis; however, there are limited data from randomized, controlled trials on the appropriate use of IVC filters. This contemporary review summarizes the history of IVC filters and the types that are available in clinical practice. It reviews the literature on the use of IVC filters and discusses the indications that professional societies have endorsed for their use. In addition, it outlines the complications of IVC filter placement and future research directions.

Deep Learning for Automated Classification of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Types on Radiographs.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the feasibility and evaluate the performance of a deep-learning convolutional neural network (CNN) classification model for automated identification of different types of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters on radiographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 1,375 cropped radiographic images of 14 types of IVC filters were collected from patients enrolled in a single-center IVC filter registry, with 139 images withheld as a test set and the remainder used to train and validate the classification model. Image brightness, contrast, intensity, and rotation were varied to augment the training set. A 50-layer ResNet architecture with fixed pre-trained weights was trained using a soft margin loss over 50 epochs. The final model was evaluated on the test set. RESULTS: The CNN classification model achieved a F1 score of 0.97 (0.92-0.99) for the test set overall and of 1.00 for 10 of 14 individual filter types. Of the 139 test set images, 4 (2.9%) were misidentified, all mistaken for other filter types that appear highly similar. Heat maps elucidated salient features for each filter type that the model used for class prediction. CONCLUSIONS: A CNN classification model was successfully developed to identify 14 types of IVC filters on radiographs and demonstrated high performance. Further refinement and testing of the model is necessary before potential real-world application.

Inferior Vena Cava Filter Elucidation: How to Identify Specific Inferior Vena Cava Filter Types on Multi-Detector-Row Computed Tomography Imaging.

The use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in the United States has increased substantially over the last 3 decades. In addition, the number of Food and Drug Administration-approved devices has also increased during this time, and there are now more than 24 different IVC filter types that may be encountered in clinical practice. These devices vary substantially with regard to design, retrievability, and risk of potential complications that include fracture, penetration, embolization, migration, recurrent venous thromboembolism, and chronic IVC occlusion. A myriad of devices are now routinely encountered on multi-detector-row computed tomography imaging, but it can be challenging to properly identify a specific IVC filter type. Proper device identification has important clinical consequences because each filter type has associated risks that may otherwise be overlooked. Identifying the specific filter type may allow further radiographic surveillance for known device-specific complications and may identify patients who can benefit from further medical treatment or prompt filter retrieval. Therefore, our purpose was to present a practical method to identify the various IVC filter types that may be encountered on multi-detector-row computed tomography imaging.

Vena cava filter options: what's on the horizon?

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are the mainstay for pulmonary embolic prophylaxis in patients with high venous thromboembolic (VTE) risk-in particular, patients with acute VTE (deep venous thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism) who have contraindication to therapeutic anticoagulation. Technology continues to evolve regarding IVC filters, with the most exciting changes over the past several decades including techniques of percutaneous insertion from laparotomy and retrieval of these devices. This paper will review current IVC filter designs and concepts and will discuss developments on the horizon.

[Remote results of implantation of cava filters: analysis of errors and complications].

The authors carried out comparative assessment of efficacy of cava filters (CF) for prevention of pulmonary artery thromboembolism in patients presenting with iliofemoral thrombosis with flotation of thrombi, as well as analysed complications in the remote postimplantation period. A total of 266 patients were examined within the terms from 1 month to 10 years after CF implantation. Depending on the type of the implanted device, all patients were subdivided into 3 groups: group 1 (n=65) consisted of patients with one-level CF, group 2 (n=112) comprised those with "sandglass" and "shuttle" type two-level cava filters, and group 3 (n=89) was composed of patients with the implanted CF "TrapEase" and "OptEase". In the remote period relapsed PATE was revealed in 5.2% of cases. Embolism in the CF was noted in 9.3% of cases, with the incidence rate of this complication not depending on the type of the implanted device. However, total occlusion of the inferior vena cava after embolism was observed 2 times more often in patients of the 2nd and 3rd group. In the first group recanalization of the intrafilter space occurred in one third of cases. Chronic occlusion of the inferior vena cava was revealed in 13.9% of cases, most frequently in group 2. Total occlusion of the inferior vena cava with the development of inferior vena cava syndrome was diagnosed in 24.1% of patients with thrombotic lesion below the level of renal veins confluence. This complication was associated with both characteristics of CF and technical errors of implantation, and was also encountered more frequently in group 2.

Excimer laser-assisted removal of embedded inferior vena cava filters: a single-center prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Although chronically implanted inferior vena cava filters may result in filter-related morbidity, there is currently no routine option for removing such filters when they become firmly embedded along the vena cava endothelium. METHODS AND RESULTS: During a 3-year period, 100 consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled in a single-center study. There were 42 men and 58 women (mean age, 46 years; limits, 18-76 years). Retrieval indications included filter-related acute inferior vena cava thrombosis, chronic inferior vena cava occlusion, and pain from retroperitoneal or bowel penetration. Filter retrieval was also performed to prevent risks from prolonged implantation and to potentially eliminate the need for lifelong anticoagulation. After standard methods failed, photothermal tissue ablation was attempted with a laser sheath powered by a 308-nm xenon chloride excimer laser. Applied forces were recorded with a digital tension meter before and during laser activation. Laser-assisted retrieval was successful in 98.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.0%-99.8%) with mean implantation of 855 days (limits, 37-6663 days; >18 years). The following filter types were encountered in this study: Günther-Tulip (n=34), Celect (n=12), Option (n=17), Optease (n=20, 1 failure), TrapEase (n=6, 1 failure), Simon-Nitinol (n=1), 12F Stainless Steel Greenfield (n=4), and Titanium Greenfield (n=6). The average force during failed standard retrievals was 7.2 versus 4.6 pounds during laser-assisted retrievals (P<0.0001). The major complication rate was 3.0% (95% CI, 0.6%-8.5%), the minor complication rate was 7.0% (95% CI, 0.3%-13.9%), and there were 4 adverse events (2 coagulopathic hemorrhages, 1 renal infarction, and 1 cholecystitis; 4.0%; 95% CI, 1.1%-9.9%) at mean follow-up of 500 days (limits, 84-1079 days). Scar tissue ablation was histologically confirmed in 96.0% (95% CI, 89.9%-98.9%). Successful retrieval allowed cessation of anticoagulation in 30 of 30 (100%) patients and alleviated morbidity in 23 of 24 patients (96%). CONCLUSIONS: Excimer laser-assisted removal is effective in removing embedded inferior vena cava filters refractory to standard retrieval and high force. This method can be safely used to prevent and alleviate filter-related morbidity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01158482.

Perforation of the IVC: rule rather than exception after longer indwelling times for the Günther Tulip and Celect retrievable filters.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to assess the incidence, magnitude, and impact upon retrievability of vena caval perforation by Günther Tulip and Celect conical inferior vena cava (IVC) filters on computed tomographic (CT) imaging. METHODS: Günther Tulip and Celect IVC filters placed between July 2007 and May 2009 were identified from medical records. Of 272 IVC filters placed, 50 (23 Günther Tulip, 46%; 27 Celect, 54%) were retrospectively assessed on follow-up abdominal CT scans performed for reasons unrelated to the filter. Computed tomography scans were examined for evidence of filter perforation through the vena caval wall, tilt, or pericaval tissue injury. Procedure records were reviewed to determine whether IVC filter retrieval was attempted and successful. RESULTS: Perforation of at least one filter component through the IVC was observed in 43 of 50 (86%) filters on CT scans obtained between 1 and 880 days after filter placement. All filters imaged after 71 days showed some degree of vena caval perforation, often as a progressive process. Filter tilt was seen in 20 of 50 (40%) filters, and all tilted filters also demonstrated vena caval perforation. Transjugular removal was attempted in 12 of 50 (24%) filters and was successful in 11 of 12 (92%). CONCLUSIONS: Longer indwelling times usually result in vena caval perforation by retrievable Günther Tulip and Celect IVC filters. Although infrequently reported in the literature, clinical sequelae from IVC filter components breaching the vena cava can be significant. We advocate filter retrieval as early as clinically indicated and increased attention to the appearance of IVC filters on all follow-up imaging studies.

Rates and predictors of plans for inferior vena cava filter retrieval in hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters has been increasing over time. However, because of the increased risk of deep vein thrombosis with permanent filters, placement of retrievable filters has been recommended. Little is known about the factors associated with planned retrieval of IVC filters. OBJECTIVE: To describe rates and predictors of plans to retrieve IVC filters in hospitalized patients. DESIGN: We identified all IVC filter placements from 2001-2006 at an academic medical center and reviewed medical charts to obtain data about patient characteristics, filter retrieval plans, and retrieval success rates. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of planned filter retrieval in patients with retrievable filters. RESULTS: Out of 240 patients who underwent placement of retrievable IVC filters, only 73 (30.4%) had documented plans for filter retrieval. Factors associated with lower rates of planned filter retrieval included a history of cancer [adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval 0.2 (0.1-0.5)] and not being discharged on anticoagulants [OR 0.1 (0.1-0.3)]. In addition, 36 (21.6%) of patients without retrieval plans had no contraindications to retrieval. Of the 62 patients who underwent attempted filter retrieval, 25.8% of filters could not be successfully removed. CONCLUSIONS: Only 30.4% of patients who underwent placement of a retrievable IVC filter had documented plans for filter removal. Although most patients had justifiable reasons for filter retention, 21.6% of patients had no clear contraindications to filter removal. Efforts to improve rates of filter retrieval in appropriate patients may help reduce the long-term complications of IVC filters.

Aortic pseudoaneurysm after penetration by a Simon nitinol inferior vena cava filter.

This report describes an unusual complication related to inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement. A 50-year-old woman undergoing long-term anticoagulation presented to her primary care physician with abdominal pain after a motor vehicle accident. An IVC filter had been placed 7 years earlier. Computed tomography of the abdomen demonstrated a moderate perisplenic hematoma and a fragmented IVC filter penetrating the aorta. A small infrarenal aortic pseudoaneurysm had developed at the penetration site. Wallgraft placement successfully sealed the aneurysm.

Update on inferior vena cava filters.

The ravages of thromboembolic disease continue to plague patients despite improvements in diagnostic imaging and anticoagulation regimens. In certain cases, standard medical therapy for thromboembolism is contraindicated, results in complications, or fails to adequately protect patients from embolic insults. These patients are treated with insertion of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. Although it appears that IVC filters do reduce long-term pulmonary embolism (PE) rates, there may be a higher associated incidence of IVC thrombosis and lower-extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT) than with anticoagulation alone. This article will address attributes of the theoretical ideal IVC filter, recently introduced IVC filters, complications of use of IVC filters, and results of recent IVC filter studies. Alternative sites for filter placements are then reviewed, along with use of temporary and retrievable IVC filters and use of IVC filters for prophylactic situations.

[Applications of the inferior vena cava filter for the prevention of the risk for pulmonary emboli]. / Pulmoner emboli riskini önlemede inferior vena kava filtresi uygulamalarimiz.

The most serious and fatal complication of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is still accepted as pulmonary embolism (PE). One of the methods used for PE prophylaxis is inferior vena cava filter(VCF). Between 1999 and 2000, VCF is used in 12 patients (8 male, 4 female) who were hospitalized in Trauma and Surgical Emergency Service of Istanbul Medical Faculty. 10 of the VCF used were permanent and 2 of them were temporary filters. 8 permanent filter were applied to patients with life-long paraplegia or quadriplegia due to spinal cord injury. Two patients to whom permanent filters were applied had malignancy. Patient who had the diagnosis of late stage cervical carcinoma, had DVT. In this patient, because of the high bleeding risk, we applied permanent filter. In the other patient, who had the diagnosis bladder carcinoma, had DVT despite the usage of low molecular weight heparin. In two patients who needed short term PE prophylaxis, had temporary VCF. In one of these patients, primary diagnosis was subarachnoidal hemorrhage due to head trauma. In the 8th day of hospitalization, DVT occurred. Because of high risk of intracranial bleeding, VCF was performed. The second patient had the diagnosis of subdural hematoma and subarachnoidal hemorrhage due to head trauma and multiple lower extremity fractures. VCF were applied in Istanbul Medical Faculty, Department of Radiology. For cannulation line of permanent VCF (LGM Venatech-B. Braun) right femoral vein was used. For temporary filters (Proliser Cordis-Johnson and Johnson Company), right internal jugular vein was the preferred way. Two multitrauma patients who had permanent filters died due to sepsis and multiorgan failure. In the follow up of other patients during the average period of 7.6 months, any problem due VCF application or by related complication and PE did not occur. Although larger patient groups with follow up period are necessary to evaluate better, we think that in PE prophylaxis, VCF is safe and effective modality.

Radiologic versus surgical placement of vena cava filters: a comparative study of cost, time and complications.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost- and time-effectiveness of 2 methods of placement of vena cava filters for the prevention of pulmonary embolism: the radiologic percutaneous placement of the Vena Tech LGM filter and the surgical cutdown placement of the 24 Fr Greenfield filter. METHODS: Retrospective review of radiologic and clinical records for 15 consecutive patients who had the Vena Tech LGM filter placed radiologically and 15 consecutive patients who had the Greenfield filter placed surgically. Factors studied were cost, procedure time, waiting time and rates of immediate and delayed complications. The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 26 months (mean 7 months). RESULTS: The procedure cost for the radiologic method was $702 less than for the surgical method. The procedure time for the radiologic method was 30 minutes shorter, and the waiting time for placement was also shorter. There was no difference in the complication rates following each procedure. The higher cost of the Greenfield filter accounted for 80% of the total cost difference. CONCLUSION: The radiologic percutaneous method of filter placement is preferred over the surgical cutdown method because of its benefits in terms of cost and time with no increase in risk. However, when the difference in cost between filters is taken into account, there is little difference in overall costs for the 2 methods. Therefore, radiology and surgery departments can place a filter percutaneously at a similar cost. Other factors such as waiting times, complication rates, venography capabilities and physician interest in performing the procedure will dictate which department places the filter.

Filtros de vena cava inferior: presentación de 28 casos

Introducción: El tromboembolismo pulmonar (TEP) sigue siendo una causa importante de morbilidad y mortalidad en el mundo. Su origen más común es la trombosis venosa profunda (TVP). La anticoagulación y el control de los factores de riesgo son el tratamiento convencional. En un número importante de casos este tratamiento no es suficiente o no es aplicable, por lo cual la interrupción parcial del retorno venoso está indicada. Esta interrupción se puede efectuar mediante la colocación de filtros en la vena cava inferior. Objetivo: Describir la experiencia de la Fundación Santafé de Bogotá (FSFB) en la colaboración de filtros de vena cava inferior. Diseño: Estudio observacional, descriptivo, de una serie de casos. Pacientes y Métodos: Se incluyeron los pacientes a quienes se colocó filtro de vena cava inferior entre 1991 y 1995. Se revisaron las historias, haciendo énfasis en factores de riesgo para TVP-TEP, indicación de la colocación del filtro de vena cava inferior, tipo de filtro y complicaciones. Resultado: Se presentaron 28 casos con las variables descritas. No se presentan datos de seguimiento a mediano y largo plazo.

Caval interruption methods: comparison of options.

The Stainless Steel and Titanium Greenfield filters, the Venatech filter, and the Bird's nest filter are most commonly used in the United States. A comparison of contemporary experience with these filters along with that of Simon-Nitinol filter is shown in Table 1. The published experience with each device is minimal compared with actual clinical use. The published reports available do not often examine experience with a view toward unbiased and accurate comparison of results. Each filter has an acceptably low rate of recurrent PE, but each has experienced the range of complications associated with vena caval filters or partitions. The reviewed case series are too small and the complication rates too similar for any of the newer designs to claim unequivocal superiority. Except for the Stainless Steel Greenfield filter, comparison is further complicated by the lack of standardized, quantitative follow-up of patients over a period long enough for possible extremity venous complications to be observed. Each of the currently available filters has at least one specific attribute that may recommend it for a particular situation. Detailed and comparable examination of IVC filtration is becoming more important as the indication for and use of these devices increase. Clearly, the search for the perfect device to prevent PE should continue.90 Any filtration device plays only a small role in the overall management of the patient with thromboembolic disease. It is incumbent upon the physician who treats this patient to assume the responsibility for the diagnosis of and long-term follow-up of the underlying disorder. Considerable technical ingenuity and continued evolution of materials and design have propelled the development and number of available vena cava filters for clinical use. Without objective clinical data, many interventional radiologists and surgeons base their filter selection on ease of insertion and device cost. Variable data on safety and effectiveness demand that physicians match the best filter to each patient's particular situation and anatomy. The primary objective of vena cava filtration is to provide a safe and effective device for permanent implantation. If this objective is not kept in sight, quality of care in the management of deep venous thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolus will be lost.

Vena caval filters.

The patient with a caval filter poses a challenge to the emergency physician. Key considerations in management are a knowledge of underlying disease processes in this patient population, indications for filter placement, potential early or delayed complications associated with these devices, and appropriate diagnostics and consultation. Diagnostic evaluation should include plain radiographs to evaluate gross structural problems, filter migration, significant filter tilting or angulation, and filter leg span splaying or retraction as well as evidence of visceral perforation or obstruction. Comparison films should be obtained, if possible. Screening laboratory tests to assess coagulation, hematologic, and renal function are indicated. The possibility of recurrent PE and a reassessment of filter protection and anticoagulation status should be considered. Advanced diagnostic imaging tools such as abdominal CT, duplex sonography, and cavography may be needed to elucidate suspected caval filter complications, or suspected new DVT or IVC occlusion. Early consultation is indicated. With new and expanded indications as well as technical improvements in caval filters, increased use of these devices can be anticipated, as can associated complications first seen and evaluated by the emergency medicine physician.

[In vitro bench tests of caval umbrella filters]. / Banc d'essai in vitro des filtres ombrelles caves.

Seven ombrelles percutaneous cava filters, now available, are tested on hydraulic testing ground. Measurements are concerned with the blocking function of filters and pressure changes induced in the cava flow and the cava track wall of the testing ground. A statistical analysis of the results (100 measurements per filter) shows homogeneous reactions of each filter when faced with different situations imposed by variations of the testing ground. Greenfield's filter, a reference, is compared with other models. This one and the L.G. filter show satisfactory filtering qualities. Two other filters, Cardial and Vascor, offer a highest filtering power. Other models give poor filtering results.