Analysis and experience of clinical application of convertible inferior vena cava filter_CHINESE JOURNAL OF BASES AND CLINICS IN GENERAL SURGERY

Authors：

LI Tao ¹ , DOU Lei ² , DONG Shuilin ¹ , AI Xi ¹ , WANG Zhihui ³ , YU Yang ³ , ZHANG Zhiwei ¹ ,  YANG Jun ¹

1. Department of Liver Surgery Center/Vascular Surgery, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, P. R. China;
2. Department of Integrated Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, P. R. China;
3. Department of Medical Ultrasound, Tongji Hospital, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, P. R. China;

Corresponding author：

YANG Jun, Email: yangjun_tjh@163.com

Keywords：

deep vein thrombosis; pulmonary embolism; inferior vena cava filter

DOI：

10.7507/1007-9424.202012086

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To discuss the implantation and conversion technology of convertible inferior vena cava filter and the experience of management.Methods The clinical data of 115 patients with convertible inferior vena cava filter implantation admitted to our vascular surgery center from January 2018 to December 2018 was retrospectively analyzed.Results Among the 115 patients with convertible inferior vena cava filter implantation, 74 were males and 41 were females. The ages ranged from 22 to 87 years, with median age 54 years. The successful rate of filter implantation was 100% without any surgical related complications. After implantation surgery, patients were followed up from 4 to 455 days with a median of 90 days and the recurrence rate of adverse events was 7.8% (9/115). The recurrence time were 16 to 104 days after conversion, with a median of 42 days. Twenty-three patients (20.0%) received filter conversion, one of them failed and all the others succeeded. The technical successful rate was 95.7% (22/23). The conversion operative time was 22.8 to 51.4 min, with median time 27.4 min. The intervals between implantation and conversion were from 4 to 455 days, with median time 159 days. Accessory techniques were used in 20 of 22 successful filter conversions and the application rate of accessory technique was 90.9%. The patients were followed-up from 30 to 180 days after conversion with a median time of 90 days and no adverse event was reported.Conclusion Convertible inferior vena cava filter is a significant choice for patients application of inferior vena cava filter due to its high safety of conversion surgery, technical success rate and possibility of conversion after long-term indwelling.

Citation： LI Tao, DOU Lei, DONG Shuilin, AI Xi, WANG Zhihui, YU Yang, ZHANG Zhiwei, YANG Jun. Analysis and experience of clinical application of convertible inferior vena cava filter. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BASES AND CLINICS IN GENERAL SURGERY, 2021, 28(9): 1177-1181. doi: 10.7507/1007-9424.202012086 Copy

1.	郭曙光, 梅百强. 下腔静脉滤器的发展与临床应用现状. 中国实用外科杂志, 2015, 35(12): 1345-1347, 1358.
2.	《中国血栓性疾病防治指南》专家委员会. 中国血栓性疾病防治指南. 中华医学杂志, 2018, 98(36): 2861-2888.
3.	Andreoli JM, Lewandowski RJ, Vogelzang RL, et al. Comparison of complication rates associated with permanent and retrievable inferior vena cava filters: a review of the MAUDE database. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2014, 25(8): 1181-1185.
4.	Deso SE, Idakoji IA, Kuo WT. Evidence-based evaluation of inferior vena cava filter complications based on filter type. Semin Intervent Radiol, 2016, 33(2): 93-100.
5.	Kaufman JA, Rundback JH, Kee ST, et al. Development of a research agenda for inferior vena cava filters: proceedings from a multidisciplinary research consensus panel. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2009, 20(6): 697-707.
6.	Kim HS, Young MJ, Narayan AK, et al. A comparison of clinical outcomes with retrievable and permanent inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2008, 19(3): 393-399.
7.	中华医学会外科学分会血管外科学组. 腔静脉滤器临床应用指南. 中国实用外科杂志, 2019, 39(7): 651-654.
8.	中华医学会外科学分会血管外科学组. 深静脉血栓形成的诊断和治疗指南(第三版). 中华普通外科杂志, 2017, 32(9): 807-812.
9.	中华医学会放射学分会介入学组. 下腔静脉滤器置入术和取出术规范的专家共识. 中华放射学杂志, 2011, 45(3): 297-300.
10.	Douketis JD, Spyropoulos AC, Spencer FA, et al. Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis. 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest, 2012, 141(2 Suppl): e326S-e350S.
11.	钱宇轩, 杨涛, 郝斌. 介入技术治疗下肢深静脉血栓的进展. 血管与腔内血管外科杂志, 2016, 2(3): 241-245, 253.
12.	Stein PD, Matta F, Hull RD. Increasing use of vena cava filters for prevention of pulmonary embolism. Am J Med, 2011, 124(7): 655-661.
13.	Mismetti P, Rivron-Guillot K, Quenet S, et al. A prospective long-term study of 220 patients with a retrievable vena cava filter for secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism. Chest, 2007, 131(1): 223-229.
14.	Sarosiek S, Crowther M, Sloan JM. Indications, complications, and management of inferior vena cava filters: the experience in 952 patients at an academic hospital with a level I trauma center. JAMA Intern Med, 2013, 173(7): 513-517.
15.	Jia Z, Fuller TA, McKinney JM, et al. Utility of retrievable inferior vena cava filters: a systematic literature review and analysis of the reasons for nonretrieval of filters with temporary indications. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 2018, 41(5): 675-682.
16.	Durack JC, Westphalen AC, Kekulawela S, et al. Perforation of the IVC: rule rather than exception after longer indwelling times for the Günther Tulip and Celect retrievable filters. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 2012, 35(2): 299-308.
17.	Zhou D, Moon E, Bullen J, et al. Penetration of Celect inferior vena cava filters: retrospective review of CT scans in 265 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2014, 202(3): 643-647.
18.	Ahmed O, Wadhwa V. IVC filter use in 2018 and beyond. https://evtoday.com/articles/2018-july/ivc-filter-use-in-2018-and-beyond?c4src=archive:feed.
19.	Bikdeli B, Chatterjee S, Desai NR, et al. Inferior vena cava filters to prevent pulmonary embolism: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2017, 70(13): 1587-1597.
20.	Danetz JS, McLafferty RB, Ayerdi J, et al. Selective venography versus nonselective venography before vena cava filter placement: evidence for more, not less. J Vasc Surg, 2003, 38(5): 928-934.
21.	Caplin DM, Nikolic B, Kalva SP, et al. Quality improvement guidelines for the performance of inferior vena cava filter placement for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2011, 22(11): 1499-1506.
22.	Morales JP, Li X, Irony TZ, et al. Decision analysis of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in patients without pulmonary embolism. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord, 2013, 1(4): 376-384.
23.	Hohenwalter EJ, Stone JR, O'Moore PV, et al. Multicenter trial of the venatech convertible vena cava filter. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2017, 28(10): 1353-1362.
24.	Wang J, Huang W, Zhou Y, et al. Hemodynamic analysis of venatech convertible vena cava filter using computational fluid dynamics. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2020, 8: 556110.

1. 郭曙光, 梅百强. 下腔静脉滤器的发展与临床应用现状. 中国实用外科杂志, 2015, 35(12): 1345-1347, 1358.
2. 《中国血栓性疾病防治指南》专家委员会. 中国血栓性疾病防治指南. 中华医学杂志, 2018, 98(36): 2861-2888.
3. Andreoli JM, Lewandowski RJ, Vogelzang RL, et al. Comparison of complication rates associated with permanent and retrievable inferior vena cava filters: a review of the MAUDE database. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2014, 25(8): 1181-1185.
4. Deso SE, Idakoji IA, Kuo WT. Evidence-based evaluation of inferior vena cava filter complications based on filter type. Semin Intervent Radiol, 2016, 33(2): 93-100.
5. Kaufman JA, Rundback JH, Kee ST, et al. Development of a research agenda for inferior vena cava filters: proceedings from a multidisciplinary research consensus panel. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2009, 20(6): 697-707.
6. Kim HS, Young MJ, Narayan AK, et al. A comparison of clinical outcomes with retrievable and permanent inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2008, 19(3): 393-399.
7. 中华医学会外科学分会血管外科学组. 腔静脉滤器临床应用指南. 中国实用外科杂志, 2019, 39(7): 651-654.
8. 中华医学会外科学分会血管外科学组. 深静脉血栓形成的诊断和治疗指南(第三版). 中华普通外科杂志, 2017, 32(9): 807-812.
9. 中华医学会放射学分会介入学组. 下腔静脉滤器置入术和取出术规范的专家共识. 中华放射学杂志, 2011, 45(3): 297-300.
10. Douketis JD, Spyropoulos AC, Spencer FA, et al. Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis. 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest, 2012, 141(2 Suppl): e326S-e350S.
11. 钱宇轩, 杨涛, 郝斌. 介入技术治疗下肢深静脉血栓的进展. 血管与腔内血管外科杂志, 2016, 2(3): 241-245, 253.
12. Stein PD, Matta F, Hull RD. Increasing use of vena cava filters for prevention of pulmonary embolism. Am J Med, 2011, 124(7): 655-661.
13. Mismetti P, Rivron-Guillot K, Quenet S, et al. A prospective long-term study of 220 patients with a retrievable vena cava filter for secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism. Chest, 2007, 131(1): 223-229.
14. Sarosiek S, Crowther M, Sloan JM. Indications, complications, and management of inferior vena cava filters: the experience in 952 patients at an academic hospital with a level I trauma center. JAMA Intern Med, 2013, 173(7): 513-517.
15. Jia Z, Fuller TA, McKinney JM, et al. Utility of retrievable inferior vena cava filters: a systematic literature review and analysis of the reasons for nonretrieval of filters with temporary indications. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 2018, 41(5): 675-682.
16. Durack JC, Westphalen AC, Kekulawela S, et al. Perforation of the IVC: rule rather than exception after longer indwelling times for the Günther Tulip and Celect retrievable filters. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 2012, 35(2): 299-308.
17. Zhou D, Moon E, Bullen J, et al. Penetration of Celect inferior vena cava filters: retrospective review of CT scans in 265 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2014, 202(3): 643-647.
18. Ahmed O, Wadhwa V. IVC filter use in 2018 and beyond. https://evtoday.com/articles/2018-july/ivc-filter-use-in-2018-and-beyond?c4src=archive:feed.
19. Bikdeli B, Chatterjee S, Desai NR, et al. Inferior vena cava filters to prevent pulmonary embolism: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2017, 70(13): 1587-1597.
20. Danetz JS, McLafferty RB, Ayerdi J, et al. Selective venography versus nonselective venography before vena cava filter placement: evidence for more, not less. J Vasc Surg, 2003, 38(5): 928-934.
21. Caplin DM, Nikolic B, Kalva SP, et al. Quality improvement guidelines for the performance of inferior vena cava filter placement for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2011, 22(11): 1499-1506.
22. Morales JP, Li X, Irony TZ, et al. Decision analysis of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in patients without pulmonary embolism. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord, 2013, 1(4): 376-384.
23. Hohenwalter EJ, Stone JR, O'Moore PV, et al. Multicenter trial of the venatech convertible vena cava filter. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2017, 28(10): 1353-1362.
24. Wang J, Huang W, Zhou Y, et al. Hemodynamic analysis of venatech convertible vena cava filter using computational fluid dynamics. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2020, 8: 556110.

CHINESE JOURNAL OF BASES AND CLINICS IN GENERAL SURGERY

Analysis and experience of clinical application of convertible inferior vena cava filter

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content