Journal of Chest Surgery

The Korean Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (대한심장혈관흉부외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Should We Remove the Retrievable Cook Celect Inferior Vena Cava Filter? Eight Years of Experience at a Single Center

  • Son, Joohyung (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Pusan National University Hospital) ;
  • Bae, Miju (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Pusan National University Hospital) ;
  • Chung, Sung Woon (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Pusan National University Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Chung Won (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Pusan National University Hospital) ;
  • Huh, Up (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Pusan National University Hospital) ;
  • Song, Seunghwan (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Pusan National University Hospital)
  • Received : 2017.05.12
  • Accepted : 2017.08.17
  • Published : 2017.12.05
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) is very effective for preventing pulmonary embolism in patients who cannot undergo anticoagulation therapy. However, if a filter is placed in the body permanently, it may lead to other complications. Methods: A retrospective study was performed of 159 patients who underwent retrievable Cook Celect IVCF implantation between January 2007 and April 2015 at a single center. Baseline characteristics, indications, and complications caused by the filter were investigated. Results: The most common underlying disease of patients receiving the filter was cancer (24.3%). Venous thrombolysis or thrombectomy was the most common indication for IVCF insertion in this study (47.2%). The most common complication was inferior vena cava penetration, the risk of which increased the longer the filter remained in the body (p=0.032, Exp(B)=1.004). Conclusion: If the patient is able to retry anticoagulation therapy and the filter is no longer needed, the filter should be removed, even if a long time has elapsed since implantation. If the filter cannot be removed, it is recommended that follow-up computed tomography be performed regularly to monitor the progress of venous thromboembolisms as well as any filter-related complications.

Keywords

References

  1. White RH. The epidemiology of venous thromboembolism. Circulation 2003;107(23 Suppl 1):I4-8.
  2. Passman MA. Vena cava interruption and pulmonary embolism. In: Rutherford RB, Cronenwett JL, Johnston KW, editors. Rutherford's vascular surgery. 8th ed. Philadelphia (PA): Elsevier Saunders; 2014. p. 811-32.
  3. Heit JA, Silverstein MD, Mohr DN, et al. The epidemiology of venous thromboembolism in the community. Thromb Haemost 2001;86:452-63. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1616243
  4. Lindblad B, Sternby NH, Bergqvist D. Incidence of venous thromboembolism verified by necropsy over 30 years. BMJ 1991;302:709-11. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.302.6778.709
  5. Jang MJ, Bang SM, Oh D. Incidence of venous thromboembolism in Korea: from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database. J Thromb Haemost 2011;9:85-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2010.04108.x
  6. Oh JC, Trerotola SO, Dagli M, et al. Removal of retrievable inferior vena cava filters with computed tomography findings indicating tenting or penetration of the inferior vena cava wall. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011;22:70-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2010.09.021
  7. Lee JK, So YH, Choi YH, et al. Clinical course and predictive factors for complication of inferior vena cava filters. Thromb Res 2014;133:538-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2014.01.004
  8. Hoffer EK, Mueller RJ, Luciano MR, Lee NN, Michaels AT, Gemery JM. Safety and efficacy of the Gunther Tulip retrievable vena cava filter: midterm outcomes. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2013;36:998-1005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-012-0517-7
  9. Heit JA, Silverstein MD, Mohr DN, Petterson TM, O'Fallon WM, Melton LJ 3rd. Risk factors for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a population-based case-control study. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:809-15. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.160.6.809
  10. Bae MJ, Chung SW, Lee CW, Kim S, Song S. Duodenal perforation caused by an inferior vena cava filter. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012;45:69-71. https://doi.org/10.5090/kjtcs.2012.45.1.69
  11. White RH, Geraghty EM, Brunson A, et al. High variation between hospitals in vena cava filter use for venous thromboembolism. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:506-12. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2352
  12. PREPIC Study Group. Eight-year follow-up of patients with permanent vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism: the PREPIC (Prevention du Risque d'Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) randomized study. Circulation 2005;112:416-22. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.512834