Journal of vascular surgery · 2006
Long-duration temporary vena cava filter: a prospective 104-case multicenter study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое 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.
Bovyn Gilles, Ricco Jean-Baptiste, Reynaud Philippe, Le Blanche Alain-Ferdinand, European Tempofilter II Study Group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Nonpermanent caval filters are placed in critical thromboembolic situations in which anticoagulation therapy is transiently contraindicated, ineffective, or the source of complications. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of a second-generation long-duration temporary caval filter in these situations and compare its utility with that of other temporary filters.
METHODS: This prospective study, including patients who underwent temporary caval filtration with the Tempofilter II, was conducted in nine European centers. All filters were successfully implanted. The filter was removed when the indication for caval filtration ceased.
RESULTS: A total of 104 filters were inserted in 103 patients with an average age of 60 +/- 15.5 years (range, 22-92 years). Most patients (85%) had pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, or both. The main indications for caval filter placement were complications of or contraindications to anticoagulation therapy (n = 85; 82.5%) or for ineffectiveness of anticoagulation therapy (n = 12; 11.7%). The average duration of implantation was 29.5 +/- 14.0 days (range, 2-86 days). One filter migrated in the right atrium, followed by pulmonary embolism. No other case of pulmonary embolism or of infectious or mechanical complications related to the filter was observed. Thrombus was trapped within the filter in 24 cases (23.3%). All filters but one were removed, regardless of whether thrombus had been trapped. Retrieval was always successful after implantation periods up to 12 weeks. In 16 cases (15.5%), the filter was replaced by a permanent filter.
CONCLUSIONS: The Tempofilter II is safe, effective, and useful in critical thromboembolic situations. It offers a valuable alternative to retrievable optional filters.
METHODS: This prospective study, including patients who underwent temporary caval filtration with the Tempofilter II, was conducted in nine European centers. All filters were successfully implanted. The filter was removed when the indication for caval filtration ceased.
RESULTS: A total of 104 filters were inserted in 103 patients with an average age of 60 +/- 15.5 years (range, 22-92 years). Most patients (85%) had pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, or both. The main indications for caval filter placement were complications of or contraindications to anticoagulation therapy (n = 85; 82.5%) or for ineffectiveness of anticoagulation therapy (n = 12; 11.7%). The average duration of implantation was 29.5 +/- 14.0 days (range, 2-86 days). One filter migrated in the right atrium, followed by pulmonary embolism. No other case of pulmonary embolism or of infectious or mechanical complications related to the filter was observed. Thrombus was trapped within the filter in 24 cases (23.3%). All filters but one were removed, regardless of whether thrombus had been trapped. Retrieval was always successful after implantation periods up to 12 weeks. In 16 cases (15.5%), the filter was replaced by a permanent filter.
CONCLUSIONS: The Tempofilter II is safe, effective, and useful in critical thromboembolic situations. It offers a valuable alternative to retrievable optional filters.