A change in strategy for filter choice leads to improved filter retrieval rates.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a new strategy for the choice of inferior vena cava filter placed would improve filter retrieval rates at our institution. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent retrievable filter placement for temporary embolic protection between January 2021 and January 2023 were considered for study inclusion. Risk factors for nonretrieval of short-term filters were identified in patients receiving filters between January 2021 and January 2022 (prestrategy group). For patients treated between February 2022 and January 2023 (poststrategy group), a long-term filter was recommended for those with these risk factors, and a short-term filter was recommended for those without these risk factors. RESULTS: The study population included 303 patients (prestrategy group, n = 154; poststrategy group, n = 149). Long-term immobilization (odds ratio [OR] = 38.000; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.858-210.564), active cancer (OR = 17.643; 95% CI: 5.462-56.993), and venous thromboembolism detected in the intensive care unit (OR = 28.500; 95% CI: 7.419-109.477) were identified as independent risk factors for nonretrieval of short-term filters. The total retrieval rate was significantly higher in the poststrategy group (87.2%) than in the prestrategy group (72.7%; P = 0.002); the short-term filter retrieval rate was also significantly higher in the poststrategy group (84.5%) than in the prestrategy group (68.5%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The proposed strategy for filter choice based on risk factors for short-term filter nonretrieval can accurately identify patients who need long-term filter placement while also increasing the retrieval rates for both short-term filters retrieval rates and overall retrieval rates.

Application of the Double Series Filter Technique for the Treatment of Acute Inferior Vena Cava Filter-Mediated Thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we examined the safety and effectiveness of removing inferior vena cava (IVC) filters with residual acute thrombosis after endovascular therapy. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 712 patients who underwent retrievable IVC filter implantation between July 2018 and December 2022 was conducted. Residual thrombosis with the IVC filter occurred in 18 patients, and the volume of residual acute thrombosis in the IVC filter exceeded 1 mL in all cases. Angiography was performed to evaluate the size of the residual thrombosis and its position with respect to the filter. The double series filter technique (first filter, infrarenal IVC filter; second filter, suprarenal IVC filter) was used to remove the filter and thrombosis. We summarize the diagnosis, treatment, and surgical experience of these patients. RESULTS: In this study, 16 of 18 patients (88.9%) demonstrated residual thrombosis in the IVC filter. One patient (5.6%) demonstrated thrombosis located both inside and floating above the filter, and one patient (5.6%) demonstrated thrombosis located both inside and underneath the filter. The technical success rate of double series IVC filter retrieval was 100%. Seventeen patients (94.4%) underwent single-stage suprarenal IVC filter retrieval, and one patient (5.6%, 1/18) underwent two-stage retrieval. In terms of residual thrombosis removal, 14 patients (77.7%) achieved complete removal and 4 patients (22.3%) achieved partial removal. Residual thrombosis could not be removed through the sheath in one patient, so femoral vein thrombectomy was performed. No other procedure-related complications were observed. The median follow-up time was 22.5 ± 6.8 months. No recurrence of thrombus symptoms was reported, and B ultrasound and computed tomography demonstrated smooth blood flow in the IVC, renal veins, and pulmonary artery. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with residual acute thrombosis on the IVC filter and in whom there was absence of a more appropriate treatment after percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy or catheter-directed thrombolysis therapy, the double series IVC filter technique was a safe approach to improve the IVC filter retrieval rate in the early stage, as well as for simultaneous residual thrombus removal.

Temporary inferior vena cava filters factors associated with non-removal.

OBJECTIVES: Inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) placement is indicated when there is a deep vein thrombosis and/or a pulmonary embolism and a contraindication of anticoagulation. Due to the increased risk of recurrent deep venous thrombosis when left in place, IVCF removal is indicated once anticoagulant treatment can be reintroduced. However, many temporary IVCF are not removed. We aimed to analyze the removal rate and predictors of filter non-removal in a university hospital setting. METHODS: We collected all the data of consecutive patients who had a retrievable IVCF inserted at the Saint-Etienne University Hospital (France) between April 2012 and November 2019. Rates of filter removal were calculated. We analyzed patient characteristics to assess factors associated with filter non-removal, particularly in patients without a definitive filter indication. The exclusion of this last category of patients allowed us to calculate an adjusted removal rate. RESULTS: The overall removal rate of IVCF was 40.5% (IC 95% 35.6-45.6), and the adjusted removal rate was 62.9 % (IC 95% 56.6-69.2%). No major complications were noted. Advanced age (p < 0.0001) and cancer presence (p < 0.003) were statistically significant predictors of patients not being requested to make a removal attempt. CONCLUSIONS: Although most of the filters placed are for therapeutic indications validated by scientific societies, the removal rate in this setting remains suboptimal. The major factors influencing IVCF removal rate are advanced age and cancer presence. KEY POINTS: • Most vena cava filters are placed for therapeutic indications validated by scientific societies. • Vena cava filter removal rates in this setting remain suboptimal. • Major factors influencing IVCF removal rate are advanced age and cancer presence.

Grasp-and-Fold Technique for Complex Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval.

This study evaluated the use of the grasp-and-fold technique for complex forceps retrieval of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. A retrospective study of 14 patients (12 women and 2 men) who had either deeply tip-embedded or severely distorted IVC filters was performed at a single institution over 10 years. In this technique, endobronchial forceps were used to fold the filter in half to remove it through the sheath because the filter tip could not be accessed by dissection. The grasp-and-fold technique successfully removed all 14 filters. One patient had retained filter struts, which were present before the procedure. One mild and 5 moderate adverse events (AEs), including fracture fragment embolization requiring retrieval and self-limited IVC extravasation, occurred. No severe AEs occurred. In this small patient cohort, the grasp-and-fold forceps technique successfully retrieved deeply tip-embedded or distorted IVC filters with inaccessible tips.

Endobronchial Forceps Retrieval of Embedded Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Retrieval of 535 Filters at a Single Center.

PURPOSE: To report results of 16 years of using the endobronchial forceps technique to remove embedded inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2005 and June 2021, 534 patients (310 women and 224 men) with a mean age of 52 years (standard deviation [SD] ± 16 years) presented for complex filter retrieval of 535 tip- or strut-embedded IVC filters. Tip-embedded filters were diagnosed on rotational venography. Filters were considered strut-embedded if they were closed-cell filters with dwell times of >6 months. The filter was dissected from the IVC using rigid bronchoscopy forceps and removed through a vascular sheath. RESULTS: The endobronchial forceps technique was successful in 530 of 537 retrieval attempts on an intention-to-treat basis (98.7%); a total of 530 filters were retrieved. There were 7 failures: (a) 5 failed retrieval attempts (2 that were retrieved successfully in subsequent procedures) and (b) 2 for which retrieval was not attempted. The mean filter dwell time was 1,459 days (SD ± 1,617 days). Laser sheaths were not used for any removal. Filters included herein were 137 Celect (94 Celect and 43 Celect Platinum), 99 Günther Tulip, 72 Option (48 Option and 24 Option Elite), 68 G2, 45 G2X/Eclipse, 42 Denali, 30 OptEase, 29 Recovery, 7 Meridian, and 6 ALN with Hook filters. Thirty-four minor (6.3%) and 11 major (2%) adverse events (AEs) occurred, which did not result in permanent sequelae. CONCLUSIONS: Use of endobronchial forceps for removal of tip- and strut-embedded retrievable IVC filters is effective and has low AE rates.

Predicting the Safety and Effectiveness of Inferior Vena Cava Filters (PRESERVE): Outcomes at 12 months.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and effectiveness of vena cava filters (VCFs). METHODS: A total of 1429 participants (62.7 ± 14.7 years old; 762 [53.3% male]) consented to enroll in this prospective, nonrandomized study at 54 sites in the United States between October 10, 2015, and March 31, 2019. They were evaluated at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months following VCF implantation. Participants whose VCFs were removed were followed for 1 month after retrieval. Follow-up was performed at 3, 12, and 24 months. Predetermined composite primary safety (freedom from perioperative serious adverse events [AEs] and from clinically significant perforation, VCF embolization, caval thrombotic occlusion, and/or new deep vein thrombosis [DVT] within 12-months) and effectiveness (composite comprising procedural and technical success and freedom from new symptomatic pulmonary embolism [PE] confirmed by imaging at 12-months in situ or 1 month postretrieval) end points were assessed. RESULTS: VCFs were implanted in 1421 patients. Of these, 1019 (71.7%) had current DVT and/or PE. Anticoagulation therapy was contraindicated or had failed in 1159 (81.6%). One hundred twenty-six (8.9%) VCFs were prophylactic. Mean and median follow-up for the entire population and for those whose VCFs were not removed was 243.5 ± 243.3 days and 138 days and 332.6 ± 290 days and 235 days, respectively. VCFs were removed from 632 (44.5%) patients at a mean of 101.5 ± 72.2 days and median 86.3 days following implantation. The primary safety end point and primary effectiveness end point were both achieved. Procedural AEs were uncommon and usually minor, but one patient died during attempted VCF removal. Excluding strut perforation greater than 5 mm, which was demonstrated on 31 of 201 (15.4%) patients' computed tomography scans available to the core laboratory, and of which only 3 (0.2%) were deemed clinically significant by the site investigators, VCF-related AEs were rare (7 of 1421, 0.5%). Postfilter, venous thromboembolic events (none fatal) occurred in 93 patients (6.5%), including DVT (80 events in 74 patients [5.2%]), PE (23 events in 23 patients [1.6%]), and/or caval thrombotic occlusions (15 events in 15 patients [1.1%]). No PE occurred in patients following prophylactic placement. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of VCFs in patients with venous thromboembolism was associated with few AEs and with a low incidence of clinically significant PEs.

Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filters for Venous Thromboembolism in Adults With Trauma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Trauma is an independent risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Due to contraindications or delay in starting pharmacological prophylaxis among trauma patients with a high risk of bleeding, the inferior vena cava (IVC) filter has been utilized as alternative prevention for pulmonary embolism (PE). Albeit, its clinical efficacy has remained uncertain. Therefore, we performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic IVC filters in severely injured patients. Methods: Three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane) were searched from August 1, 2012, to October 27, 2021. Independent reviewers performed data extraction and quality assessment. Relative risk (RR) at 95% confidence interval (CI) pooled in a randomized meta-analysis. A parallel clinical practice guideline committee assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. The outcomes of interest included VTE, PE, deep venous thrombosis, mortality, and IVC filter complications. Results: We included 10 controlled studies (47 140 patients), of which 3 studies (310 patients) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 7 were observational studies (46 830 patients). IVC filters demonstrated no significant reduction in PE and fatal PE (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.06-1.28 and RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01-7.84, respectively) by pooling RCTs with low certainty. However, it demonstrated a significant reduction in the risk of PE and fatal PE (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.12-0.55 and RR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.011-0.81, respectively) by pooling observational studies with very low certainty. IVC filter did not improve mortality in both RCTs and observational studies (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.86-2.43 and RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.3-1.31, respectively). Conclusion: In trauma patients, moderate risk reduction of PE and fatal PE was demonstrated among observational data but not RCTs. The desirable effect is not robust to outweigh the undesirable effects associated with IVC filter complications. Current evidence suggests against routinely using prophylactic IVC filters.

Intravascular Tumor Extension and Pulmonary Tumor Embolism in Children With Solid Malignancies: Is There a Role for Inferior Vena Cava Filters?

Intravascular tumor extension is an uncommon complication of solid malignancies that, when present in the inferior vena cava (IVC), can result in fatal pulmonary tumor embolism. Currently, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery are the mainstays of treatment; however, there are no consensus guidelines for management. We describe three cases of pediatric solid malignancies with associated IVC extension and pulmonary tumor embolism. We hypothesize that there is scope for IVC filter placement in such cases to mitigate the risk of fatal pulmonary tumor embolism.

Increased incidence of venous thromboembolism associated with inferior vena cava filter placement in patients diagnosed with isolated calf deep vein thrombosis after intracranial hemorrhage or intracranial operation.

In this study, we sought to investigate the effectiveness of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement in reducing the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients diagnosed with isolated calf deep vein thrombosis (DVT) after an intracranial hemorrhage or intracranial operation. A retrospective chart review (January 2000-December 2019) was performed to identify patients diagnosed with calf DVT after intracranial hemorrhage or intracranial operation. A total of 100 patients met the study criteria and were divided into groups based on treatment: IVC filter placement (n = 22), prophylactic anticoagulation (n = 42), or imaging surveillance (n = 36). Treatment-related complications were identified, and differences between groups in the primary endpoint (VTE occurrence after DVT diagnosis) were assessed using logistic regression. VTE occurred in 15 patients after calf DVT diagnosis. The rate of VTE was higher in the IVC filter group (9/22; 41%) than in the anticoagulation (2/42; 5%; p = 0.002) and surveillance (4/36; 11%; p = 0.013) groups. These treatment effects remained significant after adjustments were made for baseline characteristics (IVC filter vs anticoagulation, p = 0.009; IVC filter vs surveillance, p = 0.019). There was a single occurrence of pulmonary embolism in the surveillance group (3%). A single case of IVC filter thrombus was identified; no anticoagulation-related complications were reported. The findings of this study do not support IVC filter placement as a primary and solitary treatment for isolated calf DVT occurring after intracranial hemorrhage or intracranial operation.

Off-label use of a vena caval filter in the SVC in an adolescent with upper deep vein thrombosis.

Vena caval filters remain as a useful tool in patients with deep vein thrombosis and contraindications to anticoagulation. Although they are rarely used in paediatric patients, they have been shown to be safe and effective when used in the inferior vena cava.In this case report, we describe the off-label use of a retrievable vena caval filter in the superior vena cava in an adolescent with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia with extensive thrombosis of the right upper neck veins as a means to reduce the risk of pulmonary embolism.

The use of pre-operative Inferior Vena Cava filters for thromboprophylaxis in ultra-high-risk patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and narrative analysis.

PURPOSE: Patients undergoing total hip (THA) or knee (TKA) arthroplasty are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). As the number performed annually increases, the population at risk of fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) also grows. Ultra-high-risk arthroplasty patients (UHRAPs) include those with additional comorbidities, or a history of VTE, for many of whom routine prophylaxis will previously have failed. Pre-operative insertion of Inferior Vena Cava filters (IVCFs) has been recommended for thromboprophylaxis in UHRAPs, and this review was performed to establish their results. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase databases was performed for studies reporting the use of Inferior Vena Cava filters in hip and knee arthroplasty patients. RESULTS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria, containing 718 IVCFs in Orthopaedic patients, 343 of which were permanent (47.8%), 369 potentially retrievable (51.4%), 5 absorbable (0.6%) and one of unknown design (0.1%). Patient age averaged 64.7yrs (17-95) and 56% were female. Pre-operatively, 415 prophylactic IVCFs were inserted in 409 UHRAPs, undergoing a total of 438 total joint arthroplasties (TJA). There were 11 cases of PE in the entire series (1.5%) only one of which was fatal (0.01%), with four non-fatal PE in the UHRAP group (0.96%). Removal was attempted for 283 of the retrievable filters (76.7%) and was successful in 280 (98.9%). CONCLUSION: The use of IVCFs eliminated fatal PE in UHRAPs, but larger, high-quality studies, with standardised reporting, are still required to determine their absolute indications for use, complication profile, efficacy and optimum design.

Inferior Vena Cava Filter Litigation Review: An Analysis of Medicolegal Cases Pertaining to Inferior Vena Cava Filters.

PURPOSE: To identify and analyze all medical malpractice and product liability lawsuits pertaining to inferior vena cava (IVC) filters published within a well-recognized legal research database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: LexisNexis, a legal research database, was used to retrieve cases that mentioned harm from IVC filters, or lack thereof, as the cause for legal action. A total of 672 cases were analyzed for type of case (medical malpractice or product liability), filter model implanted, filter complications, court decisions, and settlement payments if any. RESULTS: Of 95 analyzed cases, 20 (21.1%) were medical malpractice cases and 75 (78.9%) were product liability cases. C.R. Bard was the manufacturer associated with the most lawsuits (n = 41, 48.8%). The most litigious filters were the G2 filter from C.R. Bard (n = 17, 20.2%) and Greenfield filter from Boston Scientific (n = 17). The most common complications were IVC penetration (n = 26, 29.9%), filter migration (n = 26, 29.9%), filter fracture (n = 23, 26.4%), and tilt (n = 16, 18.4%). The number of product liability cases has increased from accounting for 25.0% (2 of 8) of filter lawsuits between 2000 and 2010 to 83.9% (73 of 87) during 2011-2020. Of the 20 medical malpractice claims, 9 (45%) were filed for failure to place a filter. One physician was found liable for filter-related complications by a state court in 2014. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of recent IVC filter-related lawsuits are filed against manufacturers on the basis of product liability claims, with the main litigious filters being the G2 and Greenfield filters. Most cases resulted in rulings for physicians or manufacturers. Some were filed against physicians for filter-related complications or for failure to place an IVC filter.

Safety and Effectiveness of Advanced Retrieval Techniques for Inferior Vena Cava Filters Compared with Standard Retrieval Techniques: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To investigate the pooled safety and effectiveness of advanced retrieval techniques for inferior vena cava (IVC) filters compared with standard retrieval techniques through a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of retrievable IVC filters between 1980 and 2020 was conducted. Studies were included if both standard and advanced retrieval techniques were utilized in the same cohort, retrieval success rates and adverse event rates were described for each technique, and advanced techniques were employed after the failure of standard techniques. Study heterogeneity was assessed by the I2 statistic. The outcomes included retrieval success rates and adverse event rates for standard and advanced retrieval techniques. RESULTS: Of 1,631 articles, 21 (1%) studies met inclusion criteria. The study heterogeneity was high with an I2 of 98%. The pooled random-effects outcomes included an overall standard retrieval success rate of 76% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65%-84%), with minor and major adverse event rates of 1% (95% CI, 0%-1%) and 1% (95% CI, 0%-1%), respectively. The overall pooled advanced retrieval success rates were 90% (95% CI, 82%-94%), with minor and major adverse event rates of 5% (95% CI, 2%-9%) and 4% (95% CI, 2%-6%), respectively. The standard retrievals were 16% less likely (risk ratio) to be successful (95% CI, 32% less likely to 4% more likely; P = .11). The major and minor adverse event rates were 88% and 84% less likely in standard retrievals compared with advanced retrievals, respectively (95% CI, 86%-94%; P < .0001; 95% CI, 70%-91%; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Advanced retrieval techniques for IVC filters permit a higher retrieval success rate with low adverse event rates in cases of standard retrieval failure.

Outcome of anticoagulation with rivaroxaban in patients with non-retrieved inferior vena cava filters for the prevention of filter thrombosis: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Non-retrieved inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) is associated with some severe complications, such as filter thrombosis. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the outcome of rivaroxaban for the prevention of filter thrombosis in patients with non-retrieved IVCF. METHODS: The study based on the VTE registry databases was limited to patients with non-retrieved IVCF treated at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital from January 2012 to December 2017. Outcomes included filter thrombosis, total bleeding events, death. RESULTS: A total of 202 patients were enrolled in the study and divided into rivaroxaban group and warfarin group. Mean follow-up period of the two groups was 57.4 ± 20.8 and 62.2 ± 23.0 months, respectively. In risk factors for VTE, transient factors (P = 0.008) and history of VTE (P = 0.028) were statistically different between the two groups. A total of 13 (6.4%) patients developed filter complications, of which 4 (3.5%) and 5 (5.7%) patients in rivaroxaban group and warfarin group developed filter thrombosis, respectively, without significant difference (P = 0.690). The total bleeding events in rivaroxaban group, including major bleeding and clinically relevant and non-major (CRNM) bleeding, were significantly lower than that in warfarin group (P = 0.005). Adjusting for hypertension, transient risk factors, history of VTE and cancer, no differences in the hazard ratio for outcomes were notable. CONCLUSIONS: It is necessary to perform a concomitant anticoagulation in patients with non-retrieved filters. Rivaroxaban can be an alternative anticoagulant option for the prevention of filter thrombosis.

Implications for patient follow-up of changes in inferior vena cava filter removal plan practices.

AIM: To assess the improvements during patient follow-up after implementing a proactive plan for retrieval of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was undertaken including all patients who had a temporary IVC filter inserted over a 10-year period. Patient demographics, insertion dates, retrieval dates, retrieval rates, and complications were recorded. Patients were categorised into three groups as follows: group A, no intervention where retrieval was not suggested; group B, passive intervention where retrieval was suggested but no appointment made; and group C, proactive intervention where a retrieval date was booked by the radiologist. RESULTS: Five hundred and nine patients had a temporary IVC filter inserted at Royal Liverpool University Hospital over the study period. One per cent of patients in group C were lost to follow-up compared to 41% and 29% in groups A and B respectively (p<0.001). The number of patients who had an IVC retrieval attempt also increased to 80% in group C compared to 53% and 64% in groups A and B (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Incorporation of a proactive retrieval booking system has significantly reduced the number of patients lost to follow-up to 1%, leading to an increased number of IVC filter retrieval attempts.

Efficacy and safety of pre-operative insertion of inferior vena cava filter in patients undergoing bariatric surgery: a systematic review.

Prophylactic placement of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters prior to performing bariatric surgery is an intervention of unclear safety and efficacy with disagreement between current practice guidelines. To better characterize the risk and benefit of IVC filter insertion prior to bariatric surgery based on the current evidence. A systematic review of the literature of patients with prophylactic IVC filter insertion prior to bariatric surgery was performed and 32 studies were identified for inclusion into the review, of which none were randomized controlled trials. Meta-analysis was performed including the high-quality included studies. Seven high quality studies reported thrombotic events in patients undergoing bariatric surgery who had an IVCF and a control group which allowed for meta-analysis. The pooled odds ratio of venous thrombotic events in the IVC filter population versus the group without IVC filters was 1.57 (95%CI 0.89, 2.76). Among high quality studies 5 reported major bleeding with a rate of 0.76% and 6 reported on IVC filter complications with a rate of 0.67%. Overall no significant reduction in the rate of venous thrombosis was found with prophylactic IVC filter insertion. Use of IVC filters for prophylaxis remains a concern given the lack of clear efficacy in this setting and a small but present complication risk.

Placing a New Filter before Removing Embolized Nonconical Filter: A Report of 13 Cases.

OBJECTIVES: Permanent filter placement may result in numerous complications. Filter removal is recommended if there are no risks of pulmonary embolism. This study aimed to explore the feasibility of placing a new filter when the embolized nonconical filter is removed. METHODS: This study included patients who had received a new filter between 2018 and 2019 before the nonconical filters were removed. Patient characteristics, new filter types, thrombus interception rate, filter removal rate, feasibility, and safety were analyzed retrospectively. Feasibility was defined as the successful placement of new filters and the removal of the nonconical filters. Safety was defined as the absence of symptomatic pulmonary embolism and inferior vena cava hemorrhage after removing the nonconical filters, as well as the successful removal of new filters without symptomatic pulmonary embolism. RESULTS: The average indwelling period of the nonconical filters was 29 (range, 17-30) days among the 13 patients. The removal rate of the nonconical filters was 100%. Five patients (38.5%) received new Denali filters, one (7.7%) received a new Celect filter, and 7 (53.8%) received new temporary filters. Thrombi were intercepted in 10 of the patients (76.9%). The removal rate of the replaced new filters was 100%. No rupture or shifting of the new filters occurred. No symptomatic pulmonary embolism was found after the removal of both the nonconical filters and the new filters. The patients were followed up for 3 months after the surgeries, and the inferior vena cavae of 12 (92.3%) patients were patent, and no new embolic events were found. CONCLUSIONS: Placing a new replacement filter before removal of the embolized nonconical filter may be a feasible approach to prevent pulmonary embolism. Both the nonconical filter and the new filter could be removed subsequently after the thrombi were treated.

Does timing of IVC filter placement in bariatric surgery patients impact perioperative outcomes?

PURPOSE: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) remains a safe and effective treatment for morbid obesity with a low-risk profile. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains the most common cause of mortality. There is increasing consensus that inferior vena cava (IVC) filter use is associated with more harm than benefit. Our study aim was to determine if the timing of IVC filter placement correlates with VTE complications. METHODS: The 2015-2019 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program databases were used to identify Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) patients who had an IVC filter at the time of bariatric procedure. Selected cases were stratified by IVC placement timing. Propensity-score matching estimated the probabilities of receiving pre-existing vs. prophylactic IVC placement. Resultant models were then used to assess VTE complications. Statistical analyses were performed with Stata MP version 16. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: In total, 228,986 RYGB and 568,386 SG cases were analyzed, and 0.6% and 0.5% had an IVC filter. Prophylactic IVC filter use declined annually, but not pre-existing filters. VTE and VTE-related mortality were significantly higher in filter vs. no filter cohorts (p<0.001). Propensity matching reduced biases between RYGB and SG IVC filter cohorts (pre-existing vs. prophylactic). There were no differences in the RYGB pre-existing and prophylactic IVC filter cohorts; however; for SG cases, pre-existing IVC filters compared to prophylactic IVC filters were associated with decreased odds of having a VTE (OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95, 0.99). CONCLUSION: Compared to a pre-existing filter, the presence of a prophylactic IVC filter in SG patients was associated with a higher likelihood of VTE. HIGHLIGHTS: 1. Annual use of prophylactic IVC filter is bariatric surgery patients is decreasing. 2. The presence of a pre-existing IVC filter remain constant. 3. Any IVC filter presence at time of MBS increased VTE and VTE-related mortality and morbidity. 4. In SG cases, prophylactic IVC filter was associated with higher rates of VTE and VTE-related mortality.

Complex filter removal using forceps from combined transfemoral and transjugular approach unhooking the filter apex using forceps and dual access: Two case reports.

Modern inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) are intended to be retrieved once a thrombotic process or risk of pulmonary embolism has resolved independent of administration of anticoagulation. IVCF removal can be challenging with the risk of complications including venous perforation, filter migration, and device fracture. IVCF removal has been described using the nomenclature of routine versus advanced retrieval. Routine retrieval is defined as accessing the filter hook with a loop snare device before advancing a sheath over the filter. Advanced retrieval techniques are employed when routine retrieval fails and can refer to a variety of approaches, including filter realignment with loop snare, stiff wire-displacement, use of a wire and snare with dual access, angioplasty balloon advanced over a guidewire, single access sling approach, the sandwich technique, the endobronchial forceps dissection and removal, photothermic ablation with excimer laser, and the filter eversion technique among others. Successful routine retrieval of IVCF has been reported at 74% and IVCF retrieval with advanced techniques has a success rate of nearly 95%. The complication rate with advanced techniques is higher when compared with routine techniques (5.3% vs. 0.4%; p < .05) and, as expected, requires fluoroscopic time. We report two cases of advanced filter retrieval using endobronchial forceps simultaneously or sequentially through the transfemoral and trans-jugular approach.

Long-Term Outcomes in Patients with Not-Retrieval Inferior Vena Cava Filter Under Anticoagulation.

Since permanent inferior vena cava (IVC) filters increase deep vein thrombosis (DVT), filter retrieval should be performed as possible. Despite the guideline recommendation, IVC filters are not always retrieved in clinical practice. To date, many patients with not-retrieval IVC filters have been prescribed anticoagulant therapy, but the long-term prognosis, including venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding events, remains unknown. In this study, 195 patients who underwent IVC filter implantation between 2006 and 2017 at 3 institutions in Niigata City have been investigated about their deaths, VTE recurrence, and bleeding events. After peaking 2009, the number of IVC filter implantation gradually decreased. During observational period, there were 158 patients with not-retrieval IVC filters (the overall retrieval rate of 19.0%). The not-retrieval group included significantly older and more patients with cancer compared to the retrieval group. Anticoagulation therapy was continued in 88% of the not-retrieval group. During a mean follow-up of 5.0 years, 6 symptomatic DVT events associated with inadequate control of anticoagulation and 13 bleeding events were observed. A total of 52 patients died and only the presence of cancer was prognostic risk factor. Although long-term anticoagulation therapy may be associated with bleeding events, there were few recurrent VTE under optimal anticoagulation. It is anticipated that even if the IVC filter cannot be retrieved, appropriate anticoagulation is useful for prevention of DVT recurrence despite the risk of bleeding.