Revista medica de Chile · 2009
[Suprarenal inferior vena cava filters. Retrospective review of 30 cases].
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Mariné Leopoldo, Mertens Renato, Krämer Sch Albrecht, Valdés Francisco, Bergoeing Michel, Arriagada Ivette, Vergara Jeanette, Carvajal Claudia
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are used to prevent massive pulmonary embolism in cases where anticoagulation is contraindicated or has failed. It is usually implanted below the renal veins. In a few cases it is necessary to deploy the filter above them, with theoretical risk of secondary renal failure.
AIM: To report the experience with filters located above the renal veins.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records of all patients with percutaneous suprarenal filters are reviewed.
RESULTS: Between May 1993 and May 2007, 361 percutaneous IVC filter procedures were performed. In thirty patients aged 19 to 77 years (average 48 years, 50% males), they were placed in suprarenal position (8,3%). Suprarenal IVC filters were implanted in patients with extensive caval thrombosis, renal vein thrombosis extending to cava, displacement of previous IVC filters and double IVC system. Jugular vein approach was the access of choice. Technical success was 100%, no death or pulmonary embolism occurred. Patients were followed from 1 to 165 months (average 57 months). Eight deaths were recorded, five in patients with cancer No patient had renal failure on follow up (average creatinine 0.90+0,26 mg/dL). Three patients developed a new deep vein thrombosis (10%), without pulmonary embolism.
CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis of patients, suprarenal placement of IVC filters was not associated to secondary renal failure, and showed good short and long term results.
AIM: To report the experience with filters located above the renal veins.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records of all patients with percutaneous suprarenal filters are reviewed.
RESULTS: Between May 1993 and May 2007, 361 percutaneous IVC filter procedures were performed. In thirty patients aged 19 to 77 years (average 48 years, 50% males), they were placed in suprarenal position (8,3%). Suprarenal IVC filters were implanted in patients with extensive caval thrombosis, renal vein thrombosis extending to cava, displacement of previous IVC filters and double IVC system. Jugular vein approach was the access of choice. Technical success was 100%, no death or pulmonary embolism occurred. Patients were followed from 1 to 165 months (average 57 months). Eight deaths were recorded, five in patients with cancer No patient had renal failure on follow up (average creatinine 0.90+0,26 mg/dL). Three patients developed a new deep vein thrombosis (10%), without pulmonary embolism.
CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis of patients, suprarenal placement of IVC filters was not associated to secondary renal failure, and showed good short and long term results.