Indications and Outcomes of Open Inferior Vena Cava Filter Removal.

BACKGROUND: Despite recommendations for retrieval of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, most are not removed in a timely manner. Longer IVC filter dwell times are associated with caval wall perforation and tilting that make percutaneous retrieval more difficult. Open IVC filter removal is generally reserved for patients with symptoms referable to the filter, such as chronic back and abdominal pain. We present our management algorithm and review of cases of open IVC filter removal. METHODS: Patients referred for management of implanted IVC filters from May 2010 to May 2016 were included. Demographic and imaging were reviewed for cases requiring open surgical removal. RESULTS: There were 221 percutaneous retrieval attempts in 218 patients. Successful retrieval occurred in 196 (89%) attempts. There were 7 patients who had open surgical IVC filter removal after failure of percutaneous retrieval. One patient had 2 filters and another had 3 filters. Except for 1 case with complications during the percutaneous retrieval procedure, the remaining patients all suffered from back or abdominal pain. All had significant filter strut penetration through the caval wall into adjacent structures. Postoperatively, all patients had relief of pain. There were no deaths and 1 patient had a minor ileus that spontaneously resolved. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who fail percutaneous IVC filter retrieval can expect low morbidity and prompt resolution of symptoms after open surgical removal via minilaparotomy.

Technical and financial feasibility of an inferior vena cava filter retrieval program at a level one trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Considering new guidelines for retrievable inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs), we examine our initial experience after establishing a comprehensive filter removal program in our level 1 trauma center. We evaluated the technical and financial feasibility of this program and barriers to IVCF retrieval, including insurance status and costs, in trauma patients. METHODS: Trauma patients receiving IVCFs from May 2011 to 2013 were consented and prospectively enrolled in the study program. Retrieval rates were assessed for the years before study initiation. Primary outcome was IVCF retrieval. Hospital financial data for retrieval were examined and univariate analysis performed. Hospital cost-to-charge and payment-to-charge ratios were assessed. RESULTS: Before study initiation from April 2009 to 2011, 66 IVCFs were placed in trauma patients with only 2 retrievals in 2 years. During the study period, 247 trauma patients had IVCF placement of which 111 (45%) were enrolled. The main reason for nonenrollment was lack of referral by the implanting team. Retrieval was attempted in 100 outpatients with success in 85 (85%). Patients enrolled in the program were more likely to have their filters removed (73% vs. 18%; odds ratio, 12.6; 95% confidence interval, 6.6-24.3; P < 0.001). Mean time from placement to attempt was 6.2 ± 4.0 months (range, 0.5-31.8). Of the total attempts, 29% were nonresource patients, 11% had Medicaid, and 60% had commercial insurance including Medicare patients. Chances of successful retrieval were higher if performed later during the study (P = 0.03). Successful retrieval was not related to insurance status (P = not significant). The mean total hospital charges related to retrieval were $4,493 (range, $2,510-$9,106). Successful retrieval contributed to lower total charges (P < 0.01). Factors contributing to higher total charges were retrieval attempt later in study period (P = 0.01) and commercial insurance status (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of IVCF placement in trauma patients increased 4-fold over 4 years. The rate of IVCF retrieval increased more than 14-fold during the same period after establishment of the retrieval program. Elective outpatient retrieval of IVCFs in all eligible trauma patients is financially feasible without loss to the health care system even in regions with high rates of uninsured. A major barrier to successful filter retrieval was lack of patient referral into the program by implanting physicians. Hospital administration and physician outreach are important determinants of successful IVCF retrieval in trauma patients.

Asymptomatic patients with unsuccessful percutaneous inferior vena cava filter retrieval rarely develop complications despite strut penetrations through the caval wall.

OBJECTIVE: We established a program for retrieval of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters within our hospital system. When percutaneous retrieval fails, we only recommend open surgical removal for symptoms and other complications. We examined our outcomes with conservative management of unsuccessful percutaneous retrieval and open surgical removal for symptomatic/complicated IVC filters. METHODS: All patients with history of IVC filter placement who were referred to us for retrieval between 2010 and 2016 were evaluated. Before retrieval, patients were evaluated for risk of future venous thromboembolic events and ongoing need for IVC filtration. Asymptomatic patients with unsuccessful percutaneous filter retrieval were recommended to have annual follow-up with plain abdominal radiographs and to take daily low-dose aspirin. Patients with symptoms referable to the indwelling filter and those with complications were offered open surgical removal. RESULTS: There were 213 patients with a history of IVC filter placement who underwent 220 percutaneous attempts for retrieving 214 IVC filters (four patients had two attempts, one patient had three attempts). Technical success in percutaneously retrieving the filter was 180 of 214 (84.1%) at a median of 5.5 months (interquartile range [IQR], 3.5-9.2) from implant. The median filter dwell time was significantly longer in unsuccessful compared with successful retrieval attempts (8.3 months [IQR, 4.3-15.1 months] vs 5.5 months [IQR, 3.2-8.7 months]; P = .011). Of the 34 filters in 33 patients that could not be retrieved percutaneously, all had either significant filter barb penetration through the caval wall or a tilt angle of greater than 15°. The majority of patients (67%) remained asymptomatic without any further complications over a mean follow-up of 24 months (IQR, 12-50 months). No asymptomatic patients developed symptoms or complications over the follow-up period. Two of the five patients who were symptomatic underwent open surgical removal via minilaparotomy. An additional six patients who failed percutaneous retrieval at other institutions were referred to us for open surgical removal owing to symptoms or complications. Technical success for all open surgical removal of IVC filters was 100%. All patients had resolution of their symptoms after percutaneous or open surgical removal. CONCLUSIONS: Asymptomatic patients with unsuccessful percutaneous IVC filter retrieval seem to have low complications in midterm follow-up despite significant filter strut penetration. Without symptoms or other complications, such patients do not require referral for open surgical filter removal. Symptomatic patients can expect low morbidity and resolution of symptoms after percutaneous or open surgical removal. Further studies are needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of routinely removing asymptomatic IVC filters.