Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 1994
LGM (Vena Tech) vena caval filter: experience at a single institution.
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.
Millward S F, Peterson R A, Moher D, Lewandowski B J, Burbridge B E, Aquino J, Formoso A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The authors describe their experience with LG-Medical (LGM [Vena Tech]) filter placement and follow-up.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: LGM vena cava filters were placed in 63 patients. Follow-up was obtained by means of duplex sonography of the introduction vein and inferior vena cava (IVC) and abdominal radiography in 50 patients, and by means of autopsy in an additional four patients. In eight, only clinical follow-up was obtained and one patient was lost to follow-up.
RESULTS: Major complications of placement occurred in three patients, all when the right internal jugular vein was used for introduction: In one patient a filter was inadvertently placed in the right renal vein and in two the filter failed to open fully. No serious complications of placement occurred when either the right or left common femoral veins were used. Pulmonary embolism (PE) recurred in four patients (6%) and was fatal in one. Septicemia from an infected filter was the probable cause of death in another patient. Introduction vein thrombosis occurred in five patients (8%) and was symptomatic in two (3%). Occlusion of the IVC occurred in 15 patients (24% of the total patient group, but 28% of those with objective follow-up) and was symptomatic in 12 (19%). Two patients with IVC occlusion had recurrent PE.
CONCLUSION: These data suggest that the rate of IVC occlusion is higher than most previous reports have suggested and that IVC occlusion may be a potentially serious complication.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: LGM vena cava filters were placed in 63 patients. Follow-up was obtained by means of duplex sonography of the introduction vein and inferior vena cava (IVC) and abdominal radiography in 50 patients, and by means of autopsy in an additional four patients. In eight, only clinical follow-up was obtained and one patient was lost to follow-up.
RESULTS: Major complications of placement occurred in three patients, all when the right internal jugular vein was used for introduction: In one patient a filter was inadvertently placed in the right renal vein and in two the filter failed to open fully. No serious complications of placement occurred when either the right or left common femoral veins were used. Pulmonary embolism (PE) recurred in four patients (6%) and was fatal in one. Septicemia from an infected filter was the probable cause of death in another patient. Introduction vein thrombosis occurred in five patients (8%) and was symptomatic in two (3%). Occlusion of the IVC occurred in 15 patients (24% of the total patient group, but 28% of those with objective follow-up) and was symptomatic in 12 (19%). Two patients with IVC occlusion had recurrent PE.
CONCLUSION: These data suggest that the rate of IVC occlusion is higher than most previous reports have suggested and that IVC occlusion may be a potentially serious complication.