Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2006
Outcomes with retrievable inferior vena cava filters: a multicenter study.
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.
Ray Charles E, Mitchell Erica, Zipser Stan, Kao Edward Y, Brown Charles F, Moneta Greg L
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To retrospectively review the outcomes after placement and retrieval of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters at two academic medical centers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent retrievable filter placement between May 2001 and December 2005 were included. Hospital records at both institutions were reviewed, and relevant data were collected concerning the placement and retrieval of all removable filters.
RESULTS: A total of 197 patients underwent placement of a retrievable IVC filter. Of those, 143 patients (72.5%) had Günther Tulip filters (GTFs) placed, and 54 patients (27.5%) had Recovery filters placed. A total of 94 patients underwent attempted filter retrieval, accounting for just less than half of all retrievable filters placed during the study period (47.7%). Retrievals were successful in 80 patients (85.1%). Half the retrieval failures (n = 7) were the result of thrombus within the filter, and technical difficulties (eg, filter embedded in IVC wall, tilted filter) were the cause of retrieval failure in the other half. There was no significant difference in retrieval failure rates between the GTF and Recovery filter (16.4% vs 9.5%, respectively). GTFs were removed after a median implantation time of 11 days (range, 1-139 d), whereas Recovery filters were removed after a median implantation time of 28 days (range, 6-117 d).
CONCLUSIONS: Placement and retrieval of nonpermanent IVC filters can be performed safely with a high technical success rate. In patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism and contraindication to anticoagulation, retrievable filters may be used aggressively to prevent the potentially devastating outcome of pulmonary embolism.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent retrievable filter placement between May 2001 and December 2005 were included. Hospital records at both institutions were reviewed, and relevant data were collected concerning the placement and retrieval of all removable filters.
RESULTS: A total of 197 patients underwent placement of a retrievable IVC filter. Of those, 143 patients (72.5%) had Günther Tulip filters (GTFs) placed, and 54 patients (27.5%) had Recovery filters placed. A total of 94 patients underwent attempted filter retrieval, accounting for just less than half of all retrievable filters placed during the study period (47.7%). Retrievals were successful in 80 patients (85.1%). Half the retrieval failures (n = 7) were the result of thrombus within the filter, and technical difficulties (eg, filter embedded in IVC wall, tilted filter) were the cause of retrieval failure in the other half. There was no significant difference in retrieval failure rates between the GTF and Recovery filter (16.4% vs 9.5%, respectively). GTFs were removed after a median implantation time of 11 days (range, 1-139 d), whereas Recovery filters were removed after a median implantation time of 28 days (range, 6-117 d).
CONCLUSIONS: Placement and retrieval of nonpermanent IVC filters can be performed safely with a high technical success rate. In patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism and contraindication to anticoagulation, retrievable filters may be used aggressively to prevent the potentially devastating outcome of pulmonary embolism.