Japanese journal of radiology · 2018
Multicenter investigation of the incidence of inferior vena cava filter fracture.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Koizumi Jun, Hara Takuya, Sekiguchi Tatsuya, Ichikawa Tamaki, Tajima Hiroyuki, Takenoshita Naoko, Tanikake Masato, Suyama Yohsuke, Kaji Tatsumi, Kato Kenichi, Sone Miyuki, Arai Yasuaki, Anai Hiroshi, Kichikawa Kimihiko, Fujieda Hiroyuki, Nishibe Toshiya, Yamada Norikazu, Nakamura Mashio, Nakano Takeshi, Kunieda Takeyoshi, Kuriyama Takayuki, Sugimoto Tsuneaki, Takayama Morimasa, Kobayashi Takao, Goto Shinya, Kanazawa Minoru, Itou Masaaki, Shirato Kunio
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Inferior vena cava filter fracture (FF) may cause life-threatening complications, including cardiac tamponade, although the actual prevalence remains unclear. Therefore, we investigated the incidence of FF.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on fracture incidence with filter brands, filter positions [suprarenal (SR) vs. infrarenal (IR)], and follow-up durations were collected from the databases of eight hospitals.
RESULTS: Of 532 patients, Günther Tulip (GT), Trap/OptEase (TE/OE), ALN and VenaTech (VT) were implanted in 345, 147, 38 and 2 patients, respectively. Of these, filter retrieval was attempted in 110 (21.7%) patients and was successful in 106 (96.4%). Of the remaining 426 patients, FFs were observed in two (0.7%) of 270 GT filters and 19 (14.1%) of 135 TE/OE filters. Fragment embolization occurred in one patient with a GT filter (50.0%) and three with a TE/OE filter (15.8%) with a total follow-up interval of 718.0 ± 1019.4 days. FF occurred more frequently in TE/OE than in GT filters (p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier estimates showed significantly higher fracture-free rates for GT than TE/OE (p < 0.001) and IR-TE/OE than SR-TE/OE (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: TE/OE filters are not suitable for permanent implantation due to the relatively early and high fracture rates.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on fracture incidence with filter brands, filter positions [suprarenal (SR) vs. infrarenal (IR)], and follow-up durations were collected from the databases of eight hospitals.
RESULTS: Of 532 patients, Günther Tulip (GT), Trap/OptEase (TE/OE), ALN and VenaTech (VT) were implanted in 345, 147, 38 and 2 patients, respectively. Of these, filter retrieval was attempted in 110 (21.7%) patients and was successful in 106 (96.4%). Of the remaining 426 patients, FFs were observed in two (0.7%) of 270 GT filters and 19 (14.1%) of 135 TE/OE filters. Fragment embolization occurred in one patient with a GT filter (50.0%) and three with a TE/OE filter (15.8%) with a total follow-up interval of 718.0 ± 1019.4 days. FF occurred more frequently in TE/OE than in GT filters (p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier estimates showed significantly higher fracture-free rates for GT than TE/OE (p < 0.001) and IR-TE/OE than SR-TE/OE (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: TE/OE filters are not suitable for permanent implantation due to the relatively early and high fracture rates.