Comparison of success and cost after retrieval of two inferior vena cava filters.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to help guide inferior vena cava (IVC) filter choices by better understanding the retrieval characteristics, complications, and total costs between two commonly used IVC filters. METHODS: All patients who underwent retrieval or attempted retrieval of Denali (Bard Peripheral Vascular) or Option (Argon Medical Devices) IVC filters were identified between March 2016 and October 2021 at a single tertiary care center. Those with imaging studies that permitted evaluation of filter placement, presence or degree of tilt, and/or hooking of the filter into the IVC wall were included in the present study. Filter retrieval success, number of attempts, use of advanced techniques, and fluoroscopy and procedural times were recorded and compared between the two filters. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients presented for retrieval of 52 Denali and 35 Option Elite filters during the study period. Denali filters were more likely to be successfully retrieved at the first attempt (94% vs 77%; P = .019). The procedural and fluoroscopy times were shorter for Denali filters (29 minutes vs 63 minutes [P < .001] and 7 minutes vs 25 minutes [P < .001], respectively). Denali filters were less likely to be significantly tilted (≥15○) at retrieval (12% vs 29%; P < .001) or to have the filter hook embedded in the IVC wall (6% vs 40%; P < .001). Tilting of the filter of ≥15○ had no significant effects on the retrieval success rate (no tilt or tilt <15○ vs tilt of ≥15○: 98% vs 100%; P = .58). In contrast, filter hook penetration into the IVC wall significantly reduced successful recovery (41% vs 99%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study suggest that although the filter designs are similar, a benefit exists in the ease of retrievability of the Denali over the Option filter. We found that tilting and hooking of the filter in the IVC wall occurred significantly more with the Option filter. These factors likely made retrieval more difficult and contributed to the longer procedure and fluoroscopy times.

Genetic testing before serologic screening in relatives of patients with celiac disease as a cost containment method.

GOALS AND BACKGROUND: Relatives of patients with celiac disease have an increased lifetime risk of developing celiac disease. Repeat screening of relatives would improve diagnosis rates, but at significant cost. Genetic testing before screening would potentially reduce costs by eliminating HLA-DQ2 and DQ8 negative patients who are at extremely low risk for developing celiac disease. STUDY: A decision tree was developed incorporating 3 diagnostic branches: initial screening with anti-tissue transglutaminase at time t0, repeat screening at time t1, and genetic testing before repeat screening. Costs were estimated using Medicare reimbursement fees. Modeling and sensitivity analyses were performed using Tree Age Pro 2006. RESULTS: The cost of an initial screening with anti-tissue transglutaminase is approximately $434 per person. Repeat screening would cost $683, but would diagnosis an additional 4.4% cases. Genetic testing before screening would cost $750, but would decrease the lower endoscopy workload by nearly 25%. Genetic testing would have to decrease from $301 to $234, a difference of $67, to justify its use before serologic testing. As the specificity of anti-tissue transglutaminase approaches 100%, the cost of genetic testing would have to continue to decrease to less than $200 in order for it to be an affordable option. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat screening of relatives with celiac disease results in a significant increase in cost, but also an associated increase in cases diagnosed. Genetic testing would potentially eliminate up to 60% of the population to be screened and, if available at a lower cost, would partially offset costs of repeat serologic screening.