Inferior Vena Cava Filter in Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A Vade Mecum for the Treating Physicians: A Narrative Review.

Cancer is a remarkable prothrombotic disease, and cancer-associated thrombosis acts as a dreadful omen for poor prognosis. The cornerstone of venous thromboembolism therapy is anticoagulation; however, in patients with venous thromboembolism who are not suitable for anticoagulation (contraindication, failure, or complication), the inferior vena cava filter appears a valuable option in the therapeutic arsenal. The recently heightened trend of steady rise in filter placement mirrors the spread of retrievable devices, together with improvements in physicians' insertion ability, medico-legal issue, and novel and fewer thrombogenic materials. Nevertheless, the exact role of the inferior vena cava filter in cancer has yet to be endorsed due to a dearth of robust evidence. Indeed, data that support the inferior vena cava filter are weak and even controversial, resulting in discrepancies in the interpretation and application of guidelines in daily practice. In this narrative review, we aim at clarifying the state of the art on inferior vena cava filter use in malignancies. Furthermore, we provide a feasible, conclusive 4-step algorithm for the treating physicians in order to offer a practical strategy to successfully employ the inferior vena cava filter as a priceless device in the current armamentarium against cancer.

Comparing anticoagulant therapy alone, anticoagulant therapy in combination with catheter-directed thrombolysis, and anticoagulant therapy in combination with pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis in the patients with optional inferior vena cava filter-related thrombosis: A single-center retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the treatment methods and efficacy of inferior vena cava filter thrombosis (IVCFT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, the clinical data for 47 patients with IVCFT who underwent sequential treatment at the Department of Vascular Surgery, Tianjin Medical University Second Hospital, from January 2020 to January 2023 were analyzed. Patients were divided into three groups according to the treatment method: anticoagulant therapy (AC group), anticoagulation plus catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT group), and anticoagulation plus AngioJet thrombectomy plus catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT group). The evaluation criteria for efficacy mainly included preoperative and postoperative clinical symptoms (Villalta score), thrombus diameter, thrombus clearance rate, filter retrieval rate, filter retention time, and urokinase dosage. RESULTS: This study included 47 patients, of whom 31 were males (65.9%) and 16 females (34.1%), with a mean age of 72.05 ± 8.32 years. An Aegisy filter was used in seven patients, whereas an Illicium filter was used in forty patients. There were a total of nineteen patients in the anticoagulation-only group, with complete dissolution of the intraluminal thrombus in five patients, a residual thrombus with a maximum diameter ≤1 cm in three patients, and a residual thrombus with a maximum diameter >1 cm in eleven patients. The Villalta score was 7.16 ± 0.6 before treatment and decreased to 3.79 ± 0.59 after treatment. The thrombus diameter decreased from an average of 1.46 ± 0.2 cm before treatment to an average of 0.85 ± 0.14 cm after treatment. The retrieval rate for the filters was 42.11% (8/19), with an average dwell time of 27.4 ± 1.3 days for the filters. The CDT group consisted of 17 patients. Among whom we observed, complete dissolution of the intraluminal thrombus was observed in six patients, residual thrombus with a maximum diameter ≤1 cm in nine patients, and residual thrombus with a maximum diameter >1 cm in two patients. The Villalta score decreased from 7.53 ± 0.83 before treatment to 2.06 ± 0.39 after treatment. The thrombus diameter also decreased from 1.46 ± 0.16 cm before treatment to 0.35 ± 0.11 cm after treatment. The retrieval rate of the filters was 88.24% (15/17), and the average filter indwelling time was 19.25 ± 4.5 days. The PCDT group consisted of 11 patients. We observed complete dissolution of the intraluminal thrombus in four patients, residual thrombus with a maximum diameter ≤1 cm in six patients, and residual thrombus with a maximum diameter >1 cm in one patient. The Villalta score decreased from 7.45 ± 0.76 before treatment to 2.09 ± 0.55 after treatment. The thrombus diameter decreased from 1.50 ± 0.21 cm before treatment to 0.33 ± 0.35 cm after treatment, and the rate of filter retrieval was 90.91% (10/11). CONCLUSION: The three treatments of anticoagulation therapy, CDT, and PCDT were meaningful for preoperative and postoperative thrombolysis and symptom improvement in patients with IVCFT. The application of CDT and PCDT was superior to anticoagulation therapy, while there was no significant difference between the CDT and PCDT group. The retrieval rate of filters in the anticoagulation therapy group was the lowest, with no significant difference between the CDT and PCDT group.

Surgical Strategies and Perioperative Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Vena Cava Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to describe robot-assisted vena cava reconstruction by summarising surgical strategies and perioperative outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on all robotic surgeries involving dissection and repair of the inferior vena cava (IVC) at our institution. Patient characteristics, operative reports, and follow-up visits were analysed. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients underwent robot assisted surgery of the vena cava from 2016 to 2023. The median postoperative hospital stay of all patients was 7 days, and the median estimated blood loss (EBL) was 550 mL. The median IVC clamping time was 23 min, and IVC wall invasion was pathologically identified in five cases. No patients had liver or kidney dysfunction at the last follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our initial experiences demonstrate that it is safe and feasible for experienced surgeons to perform robot-assisted vena cava reconstruction in highly selected patients.

DVT with Pulmonary Embolism in Patient with Grade 2 Compound Tibia Shaft Fracture- Treated with Thrombolysis and Use of Prophylactic IVC Filter: Case Report.

Introduction: Major orthopedic procedures place patients at risk for Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). DVT has a 10-40% incidence after isolated fractures of the tibia and distal bones of the lower extremity. Diagnostic techniques are venous compression ultrasonography, venography, and pulmonary angiography. Prevention methods for venous thromboembolism (VTE) include mechanical prophylaxis and pharmacological prophylaxis. Inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) intercepts thrombus in inferior vena cava and prevents it from reaching the pulmonary artery. Case Report: A 39-year-old female having compound Type 2 mid-shaft tibia fracture and operated with intramedullary nailing at a corporate hospital, Navi Mumbai in January 2024. Despite giving DVT prophylaxis, she developed shortness of breath on 3rd day. 2D echocardiogram (ECHO) showed dilated right atrium and right ventricular and computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) showed saddle embolism at the junction of pulmonary artery division. The cardiologist immediately advised intravenous (IV) thrombolysis (injection tenecteplase 30 mg stat) followed by IV anticoagulants (injection low molecular weight heparin 0.6) and oral (rivaroxaban 20 mg) for 15 days. However, she complained of high-grade fever, right leg persistent swelling, and per vaginal (PV) bleeding. Venous Doppler showed persistent thrombi. Hence oral rivaroxaban was stopped, and IVCF was inserted in February 2024 to prevent further embolization. After observing her menstrual cycles, she was resumed on oral rivaroxaban after 1 month. Follow-up after 3 months of surgery (April 2024) showed signs of healing of shaft tibia fracture. Follow-up after 3 months of IVCF placement (May 2024) showed no persistent thrombi in bilateral lower limb venous Doppler. Hence decision of F removal was made at 3 months. Conclusion: Clinical evaluation of patients is important for the detection of DVT-PE. Complain of breathlessness on exertion suggested the diagnosis of PE, confirmed by 2D ECHO and CTPA, and immediately treated by the cardiac team with thrombolytics and anticoagulants. Since the patient developed bleeding PV, the insertion of an IVCF is the best option for treatment and prophylaxis of future VTE episodes.

Risk Factors of Pulmonary Embolism in Long-Segment Posterior Thoracolumbar Fusion: Scoring System for Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the factors for pulmonary embolism (PE) development and the necessity of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement. Specifically, propose a scoring system to identify patient populations who benefit from IVC filter placement. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective cohort study was performed between 2010 and 2022. Inclusion criteria were open posterior thoracolumbar fusion, ≥7 segments, and adult patients ≥18 years old. Patients undergoing any surgical approach other than posterior were excluded. Risk factors such as smoking status, illicit drug use/type, body mass index, gender, age, anticoagulation history, and status on the presence of PE were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 365 patients were identified; 170 patients (46.6%) were male, and 195 (53.4%) were female. Twenty-four patients (6.6%) had IVC filters placed before the surgery. The overall rate of PE was 8 (2.2%), all in patients without IVC filter. Analysis showed that gender, age, and body mass index did not affect the incidence of PE. Smoking status, history of illicit drug use (cocaine/cannabis), and history of deep vein thrombosis/PE significantly increased the incidence of PE. Based on multivariate logistic regression, we developed a scoring system composed of the significant risk factors outlined earlier to determine the risk of developing PE. Our scoring system stratified risk to low risk (0-3 points), medium risk (4-6 points), and high risk (7 or 8 points). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of PE is relatively low after long-segment posterior thoracolumbar fusion. Smoking (former and current), history of cocaine/cannabis use, and history of venous thromboembolism are risk factors in such patients. We recommend prophylactic IVC filter use only in high-risk subgroups and under discretion between physician and patient in medium-risk subgroups.

Placing two inferior vena cava filters for the bail-out management of opening failure of an inferior vena cava filter.

A 93-year-old man with a femoral fracture was admitted to the emergency department. The patient presented with severe hypoxemia and shock. Enhanced computed tomography confirmed deep venous thrombosis in the left leg and pulmonary embolism. Subsequently, an inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) was implanted. Although the IVCF was completely unsheathed for deployment, it remained fully folded and did not open; it was not deployed or retrieved. A new IVCF was successfully placed in the same position. Acute treatment for the deep venous thrombosis and further pulmonary embolism was achieved.

Appropriateness guidelines for inferior vena cava filter utilization: A contemporary review.

Concern regarding the exponential increase in optional utilization of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) in the early 2000s with a persistent low retrieval rate nationwide has resulted in increased scrutiny regarding clinical application of IVCFs. IVCFs are used in a variety of clinical scenarios, ranging from thromboembolic protection in patients with deep venous thrombosis and contraindication to anticoagulation to prophylactic deployment in multitrauma and critically ill patients. Evidence supporting IVCFs as mechanical thromboembolic protection in certain clinical scenarios has been established through evidenced-based guidelines. As an adjunct to evidence-based guidelines, appropriateness criteria to address specific clinical scenarios and facilitate clinical decision making when considering placement of an IVCF have been developed. In this review, current evidence-based and appropriateness guidelines are summarized.

Numerical simulation and in vitro experimental study of the hemodynamic performance of vena cava filters with helical forms.

Inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) implantation is a common method of thrombus capture. By implanting a filter in the inferior vena cava (IVC), microemboli can be effectively blocked from entering the pulmonary circulation, thereby avoiding acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Inspired by the helical flow effect in the human arterial system, we propose a helical retrievable IVCF, which, due to the presence of a helical structure inducing a helical flow pattern of blood in the region near the IVCF, can effectively avoid the deposition of microemboli in the vicinity of the IVCF while promoting the cleavage of the captured thrombus clot. It also reduces the risk of IVCF dislodging and slipping in the vessel because its shape expands in the radial direction, allowing its distal end to fit closely to the IVC wall, and because its contact structure with the inner IVC wall is curved, increasing the contact area and reducing the risk of the vessel wall being punctured by the IVCF support structure. We used ANSYS 2023 software to conduct unidirectional fluid-structure coupling simulation of four different forms of IVCF, combined with microthrombus capture experiments in vitro, to explore the impact of these four forms of IVCF on blood flow patterns and to evaluate the risk of IVCF perforation and IVCF dislocation. It can be seen from the numerical simulation results that the helical structure does have the function of inducing blood flow to undergo helical flow dynamics, and the increase in wall shear stress (WSS) brought about by this function can improve the situation of thrombosis accumulation to a certain extent. Meanwhile, the placement of IVCF will change the flow state of blood flow and lead to the deformation of blood vessels. In in vitro experiments, we found that the density of the helical support rod is a key factor affecting the thrombus trapping efficiency, and in addition, the contact area between the IVCF and the vessel wall has a major influence on the risk of IVCF displacement.

Predicting inferior vena cava filter complications using machine learning.

OBJECTIVE: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement is associated with important long-term complications. Predictive models for filter-related complications may help guide clinical decision-making but remain limited. We developed machine learning (ML) algorithms that predict 1-year IVC filter complications using preoperative data. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was used to identify patients who underwent IVC filter placement between 2013 and 2024. We identified 77 preoperative demographic and clinical features from the index hospitalization when the filter was placed. The primary outcome was 1-year filter-related complications (composite of filter thrombosis, migration, angulation, fracture, and embolization or fragmentation, vein perforation, new caval or iliac vein thrombosis, new pulmonary embolism, access site thrombosis, or failed retrieval). The data were divided into training (70%) and test (30%) sets. Six ML models were trained using preoperative features with 10-fold cross-validation (Extreme Gradient Boosting, random forest, Naïve Bayes classifier, support vector machine, artificial neural network, and logistic regression). The primary model evaluation metric was area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Model robustness was assessed using calibration plot and Brier score. Performance was evaluated across subgroups based on age, sex, race, ethnicity, rurality, median Area Deprivation Index, planned duration of filter, landing site of filter, and presence of prior IVC filter placement. RESULTS: Overall, 14,476 patients underwent IVC filter placement and 584 (4.0%) experienced 1-year filter-related complications. Patients with a primary outcome were younger (59.3 ± 16.7 years vs 63.8 ± 16.0 years; P < .001) and more likely to have thrombotic risk factors including thrombophilia, prior venous thromboembolism (VTE), and family history of VTE. The best prediction model was Extreme Gradient Boosting, achieving an AUROC of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.94). In comparison, logistic regression had an AUROC of 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.65). Calibration plot showed good agreement between predicted/observed event probabilities with a Brier score of 0.07. The top 10 predictors of 1-year filter-related complications were (1) thrombophilia, (2) prior VTE, (3) antiphospholipid antibodies, (4) factor V Leiden mutation, (5) family history of VTE, (6) planned duration of IVC filter (temporary), (7) unable to maintain therapeutic anticoagulation, (8) malignancy, (9) recent or active bleeding, and (10) age. Model performance remained robust across all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: We developed ML models that can accurately predict 1-year IVC filter complications, performing better than logistic regression. These algorithms have potential to guide patient selection for filter placement, counselling, perioperative management, and follow-up to mitigate filter-related complications and improve outcomes.

Optimizing inferior vena cava filter design: A computational fluid dynamics study on strut configuration for enhanced hemodynamic performance and thrombosis reduction.

Background and objective: Inferior vena cava filters have been shown to be effective in preventing deep vein thrombosis and its secondary complication, pulmonary embolism, thereby reducing the high mortality rate. Although inferior vena cava filters have evolved, specific complications like inferior vena cava thrombosis-induced deep vein thrombosis worsening and recurrent pulmonary embolism continue to pose challenges. This study analyzes the effects of geometric parameter variations of inferior vena cava filters, which have a significant impact on the thrombus formation inside the filter, the capture, dissolution, and hemodynamic flow of thrombus, as well as the shear stress on the filter and vascular wall. Methods: This study used computational fluid dynamic simulations with the carreau model to investigate the impact of varying inferior vena cava filter design parameters (number of struts, strut arm length, and tilt angle) on hemodynamics. Results: Recirculation and stagnation areas due to flow velocity and pressure, along with wall shear stress values, were identified as key factors. It is important to find a balance between wall shear stress high enough to aid thrombolysis and low enough to prevent platelet activation. The results of this paper show that the risk of platelet activation and thrombus filtration may be lowest when the wall shear stress of the filter ranges from 0 to 4 [Pa], minimizing stress concentration within the filter. Conclusion: 16 arm struts with a length of 20 mm and a tilt angle of 0° provide the best balance between thrombus capture and minimization of hemodynamic disturbance. This configuration minimizes the size of the stagnation and recirculation zones while maintaining sufficient wall shear stress for thrombus dissolution.

Case report: A case of perineal prolapse of giant uterine fibroids complicated by multiple pulmonary embolisms and deep venous thrombosis.

A 43-year-old woman with a history of uterine fibroids, anemia, and deep vein thrombosis presented with a chief symptom of prolapse of tumor from the perineum, complicated by infection. The case was further complicated by bilateral pulmonary multiple embolism, deep vein thrombosis, acute cardiac insufficiency, acute renal insufficiency, and shock. The patient was treated with preoperative placement of an inferior vena cava filter, open hysterectomy, and perioperative anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin. She smoothly navigated the perioperative period and recovered completely.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters: An Overview.

For patients with existing venous thromboembolisms (VTEs), anticoagulation remains the standard of care recommended across multiple professional organizations. However, for patients who developed a deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and/or a pulmonary embolism and cannot tolerate anticoagulation, inferior vena cava (IVC) filters must be considered among other alternative treatments. Although placement of a filter is considered a low-risk intervention, there are important factors and techniques that surgeons and interventionalists should be aware of and prepared to discuss. This overview covers the basics regarding the history of filters, indications for placement, associated risks, and techniques for difficult removal.

Oral Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin After inferior Vena cava Filter Implantation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared to warfarin after inferior vena cava (IVC) filter implantation. METHOD: This retrospective analysis includes data from 100 patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) who underwent IVC filter implantation due to a free-floating thrombus (n = 64), thrombus propagation (n = 8), or acute bleeding (n = 8) on therapeutic anticoagulation, catheter-directed thrombolysis (n = 8), or had previously implanted filter with DVT recurrence. Patients were treated with warfarin (n = 41) or rivaroxaban (n = 59) for 3-12 months. Symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence and bleeding events were assessed at 12 months follow-up. RESULTS: Three (7.3%) cases of VTE recurrence without IVC filter occlusion occurred on warfarin and none on rivaroxaban. The only (2.4%) major bleeding occurred on warfarin. Three (5.1%) clinically relevant non-major bleedings were detected on rivaroxaban. No significant differences existed between groups when full and propensity scores matched datasets were compared. CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban seems not less effective and safe than warfarin after IVC filter implantation.

Endovascular Inferior Vena Cava Filters Placed in Duplicated Inferior Vena Cava Syndrome.

Duplicated inferior vena cava (D-IVC) is a relatively rare anatomical anomaly. Clinically, these anomalies are incidentally found on computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Lack of pre-operative identification of this congenital malformation can lead to incomplete protection against thromboembolism or hemorrhage. We present a case of a 71-year-old male with a duplicated inferior vena cava who underwent insertion of bilateral inferior vena cava filters for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) management.

The outcome of endovenous intervention for acute iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis with and without inferior vena cava filter.

BACKGROUND: Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for acute iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is an endovenous interventional therapy that can quickly remove the acute thrombus, thereby improving the clinical outcomes of proximal DVT. However, instrumentation of extensive fresh thrombus may be associated with iatrogenic pulmonary embolism (PE). Therefore, we aimed to compare CDT's safety, complications, and perioperative embolic (PE) insults for acute iliofemoral DVT, with and without an IVC filter. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients having acute proximal DVT for less than 14 days and undergoing endovenous therapy were included and presented to the vascular surgery department of Al-Azhar University Hospitals, Egypt. The patients were randomized into two equal groups, Groups A and B, each having 60 patients. Group A was treated with IVC filter insertion, while Group B was treated without a filter. The anticoagulation and CDT procedures were similar between the two groups. RESULTS: The sample included 96 females (80%) and 24 males (20%), with a mean age of 32.6 ± 7.2 years. Clinically no clinical PE occurred in both groups. However, radiologically, new lesions in multislice CT pulmonary angiogram and V/Q scan were noted in two of 60 patients (3.33%) of the IVC filter group, compared with three patients (5 %) in the non-filtered group. CONCLUSION: Endovenous intervention in the form of CDT for acute iliofemoral DVT without an IVC filter is safe and not associated with an increased risk of pulmonary embolization than filter usage. The routine use of IVC filters should not be used mandatorily during CDT.

Utilization Practices of Inferior Vena Cava Filters at an Academic Medical Center.

INTRODUCTION:  Anticoagulation is the mainstay of management for patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are indicated in select patients who are not candidates for anticoagulation. There is a lack of quality evidence supporting other indications. In addition, long-term benefits and safety profiles of IVC filters have not been established. We investigated the utilization practice of IVC filters in a contemporary series of patients in a tertiary academic medical center. METHODOLOGY:  A retrospective review of 200 patients who received IVC filters at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) Medical Center in the years 2017 and 2018 was conducted. Adult patients 18 years of age or older with or without cancer were included, and patients were selected consecutively until data on 200 patients were collected. Data on patient demographics, an indication of IVC filter placement, filter retrieval rate, and re-thrombosis events over a median follow-up period of nine months were extracted from the electronic medical record and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients (105 male and 95 female) were included with a median age of 61 years (range 17-92 years). Of the 200 patients, 97 (48.5%) had a DVT, 28 (14%) had a PE, 73 (36.5%) had both a PE and DVT, and 2 (1%) had thrombosis at other sites. A total of 130 (65%) patients had an IVC filter placed because of a contraindication to anticoagulation, while 70 (35%) had an IVC filter placed for other nonstandard indications, which included new or worsening VTE despite anticoagulation, recent VTE who must have anticoagulation held during surgery, primary prevention in high-risk patients, and extensive disease burden among other reasons. Seventy-two (36%) patients had active malignancy at the time of filter placement, and 64 (32%) were lost to follow-up. Of the 119 patients who were potentially eligible for filter retrieval, 55 (46%) patients had their IVC filters removed at a median of five months after insertion. Of the 55 patients who had IVC filters removed, 8 (14.5%) patients experienced a re-thrombosis event within a median follow-up of 39 months. Of the 145 patients who still had their filter in place at the time of death or last follow-up, 5 (3.4%) patients experienced a re-thrombosis event within a median follow-up of three months. CONCLUSIONS:  One-third of the patients in this series had an IVC filter placed without a standard indication, and less than half of them had the IVC filters removed within one year of placement. Additionally, one-third of the patients were lost to follow-up, highlighting the need for improved structured follow-up programs and education among both patients and providers regarding the indications for placement and retrieval to minimize complications.

Safety and Outcomes of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement in Oncology Patients: A Single-Centre Experience.

The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the oncology population is significantly higher than in non-cancer patients. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters may, therefore, be an important part of VTE treatment. In this study, we address the outcomes of placing IVC filters in the oncology population. This single-centre, observational, retrospective study included 62 patients with active malignancy and acute VTE who underwent an IVC filter implantation due to contraindications to anticoagulation during the period 2012-2023. The control group consisted of 117 trauma patients. In both groups, an urgent surgical procedure requiring temporary cessation of anticoagulation was the most noted reason for IVC filter placement-76% in the oncology group vs. 100% in the non-oncology group (p < 0.001). No complications were reported during the IVC filter implantation procedures. There was no recurrence of pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis in the oncology group after filter implantation. The rate of successful filter explantation, median time to retrieval, and abnormal findings during retrieval were not significantly different between both subgroups (64.3% vs. 76.5%, p = 0.334; 77 days vs. 84 days, p = 0.764; 61.5% vs. 54.2%, p = 0.672; respectively). The study showed that IVC filter placement is a safe and effective method of preventing PE in cancer patients with contraindications to anticoagulation. The complication rate following IVC filter implantation in cancer patients is low and similar to that in non-oncology patients.

Complications Associated With Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval: A Systematic Review.

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have been used successfully in high-risk patients to prevent thromboembolism. The filters are widely created as retrievable devices, but complication rates progressively increase during IVC filter retrieval. This study aims to analyze IVC filter retrieval cases and associated complications during and following the procedures regarding dwell times, specific filter types, filter positioning, and advanced retrieval techniques. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to select and analyze relevant articles. A literature search for articles was performed on September 23, 2023, through three research databases: PubMed, ProQuest, and ScienceDirect. The keywords used to identify relevant publications were "IVC Filter retrieval AND complications" and "IVC filter removal AND complications". The articles before 2012 were excluded. Relevant articles were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In total, 20,435 articles were found: 812 from PubMed, 15,635 from ProQuest, and 3,988 from Science Direct. Among the exclusions were 18,462 articles, which were excluded in the automatic screening process, leaving 1,973 for manual screening. The manual screening of articles was conducted based on title, abstract, article type, duplicates, and case reports, where 1,918 articles were excluded. Ultimately, 55 articles were included in this review. This study demonstrates that IVC filter retrievals have significant complication rates. Many complications have a common theme: prolonged dwell time and lost follow-up appointments. Therefore, importance should be placed on patient education and implementing strict protocols regarding the timelines of IVC filter removals.

Comparison of inferior vena cava filter use and outcomes between cancer and non-cancer patients in a tertiary hospital.

BACKGROUND: While accepted indications for the use of inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) in patients with a venous thromboembolism (VTE) have remained stable, their use continues to be frequent. Retrieval rates are still low, being particularly notable in the population with cancer. This study aims to review the rate of adherence to guidelines recommendation and to compare retrieval rates and complications in both cancer and non-cancer patients. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed including 185 patients in whom an IVCF was placed in Hospital Clinic of Barcelona. Baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and IVCF-related outcomes were analyzed. A strongly recommended indication (SRI) was considered if it was included in all the revised clinical guidelines and non-strongly if it was included in only some. RESULTS: Overall, 47 % of the patients had a SRI, without differences between groups. IVCF placement after 29 days from the VTE event was more frequent in the cancer group (46.1 vs. 17.7 %). Patients with cancer (48.1 % of the cohort) were older, with higher co-morbidity and bleeding risk. Anticoagulation resumption (75.3 % vs. 92.7 %) and IVCF retrieval (50.6 % vs. 66.7 %) were significantly less frequent in cancer patients. No significant differences were found regarding IVCF-related complications, hemorrhagic events and VTE recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: SRI of IVCF placement was found in less than half of the patients. Cancer patients had higher rates of IVCF placement without indication and lower anticoagulation resumption and IVCF retrieval ratios, despite complications were similar in both groups.

Laparoscopic-assisted retrieval of inferior vena cava filter: A case report and literature review.

BACKGROUND: The retrieval of inferior vena cava filters beyond the retrieval window poses challenges, requiring alternative techniques. OBJECTIVES: To discuss the laparoscopy-assisted retrieval approach for difficult inferior vena cava filters. RESEARCH DESIGN: Case report. SUBJECTS: A 57-year-old male with a retrievable inferior vena cava filter placed 8 months prior. MEASURES: Laparoscopy-assisted retrieval technique utilized after unsuccessful interventional attempts. RESULTS: Successful retrieval of the filter despite thickened intimal tissue involvement, with no postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy-assisted retrieval offers a direct visual approach for challenging filter removal, proving minimally invasive, safe, and effective.