Suprarenal Inferior Vena Cava Filters: A 20-Year Single-Center Experience

Sanjeeva P. Kalva, Chrysanthi Chlapoutaki, Stephan Wicky, Alan J. Greenfield, Arthur C. Waltman, Christos A. Athanasoulis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

59 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the clinical safety and efficacy of suprarenal inferior vena cava (IVC) filters during long-term follow-up. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, the authors collected the following data about patients who underwent suprarenal IVC filter placement at their institution between 1988 and 2007: demographics, clinical presentation, indications for filter placement, reasons for placing the filter in the suprarenal IVC, type of filter, frequency of pulmonary embolism (PE) after filter placement, and filter-related problems during follow-up. Results: Seventy patients (32 male and 38 female patients; mean age, 60 years) had suprarenal IVC filters. Sixty-two patients presented with symptoms of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and eight had incidental asymptomatic VTE at imaging. Indications for filter placement were as follows: contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 48), complications and/or failure of anticoagulation (n = 12), added protection (n = 8), and prophylaxis (n = 2). Suprarenal placement was chosen due to IVC thrombus (n = 41), intrinsic and/or extrinsic narrowing of the infrarenal IVC (n = 9), renal and/or gonadal vein thrombus (n = 3), congenital IVC anomalies (n = 6), pelvic mass (n = 5), pregnancy (n = 3), and other reasons (n = 3). The following filters were used: Greenfield (n = 29), Simon Nitinol (n = 5), Vena-Tech (n = 3), TrapEase (n = 22), OptEase (n = 3), Tulip (n = 6), Bird's Nest (n = 1), and Recovery (n = 1). During follow-up (mean, 573 days ± 953), postfilter PE was suspected in 10 patients; eight patients underwent computed tomography (CT), one of whom had PE at CT. None developed new symptoms of caval thrombosis. Abdominal CT (performed in 30 patients at a mean of 543 days ± 768) showed thrombus in the filter in three patients, fracture in one patient, and penetration of the IVC wall in two patients. Conclusions: Suprarenal filters are safe and effective in preventing PE. The placement of IVC filters above the renal veins does not carry an added risk of complications.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1041-1047
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
Volume19
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2008

Fingerprint

Vena Cava Filters
Inferior Vena Cava
Pulmonary Embolism
Thrombosis
Venous Thromboembolism
Tomography
Tulipa
Venae Cavae
Renal Veins
Birds
Veins
Retrospective Studies
Demography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Kalva, S. P., Chlapoutaki, C., Wicky, S., Greenfield, A. J., Waltman, A. C., & Athanasoulis, C. A. (2008). Suprarenal Inferior Vena Cava Filters: A 20-Year Single-Center Experience. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 19(7), 1041-1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2008.03.026

Suprarenal Inferior Vena Cava Filters : A 20-Year Single-Center Experience. / Kalva, Sanjeeva P.; Chlapoutaki, Chrysanthi; Wicky, Stephan; Greenfield, Alan J.; Waltman, Arthur C.; Athanasoulis, Christos A.

In: Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Vol. 19, No. 7, 07.2008, p. 1041-1047.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kalva, SP, Chlapoutaki, C, Wicky, S, Greenfield, AJ, Waltman, AC & Athanasoulis, CA 2008, 'Suprarenal Inferior Vena Cava Filters: A 20-Year Single-Center Experience', Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 1041-1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2008.03.026
Kalva, Sanjeeva P. ; Chlapoutaki, Chrysanthi ; Wicky, Stephan ; Greenfield, Alan J. ; Waltman, Arthur C. ; Athanasoulis, Christos A. / Suprarenal Inferior Vena Cava Filters : A 20-Year Single-Center Experience. In: Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. 2008 ; Vol. 19, No. 7. pp. 1041-1047.
@article{73d580ee2a194d57b6b9edc199fcf564,
title = "Suprarenal Inferior Vena Cava Filters: A 20-Year Single-Center Experience",
abstract = "Purpose: To assess the clinical safety and efficacy of suprarenal inferior vena cava (IVC) filters during long-term follow-up. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, the authors collected the following data about patients who underwent suprarenal IVC filter placement at their institution between 1988 and 2007: demographics, clinical presentation, indications for filter placement, reasons for placing the filter in the suprarenal IVC, type of filter, frequency of pulmonary embolism (PE) after filter placement, and filter-related problems during follow-up. Results: Seventy patients (32 male and 38 female patients; mean age, 60 years) had suprarenal IVC filters. Sixty-two patients presented with symptoms of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and eight had incidental asymptomatic VTE at imaging. Indications for filter placement were as follows: contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 48), complications and/or failure of anticoagulation (n = 12), added protection (n = 8), and prophylaxis (n = 2). Suprarenal placement was chosen due to IVC thrombus (n = 41), intrinsic and/or extrinsic narrowing of the infrarenal IVC (n = 9), renal and/or gonadal vein thrombus (n = 3), congenital IVC anomalies (n = 6), pelvic mass (n = 5), pregnancy (n = 3), and other reasons (n = 3). The following filters were used: Greenfield (n = 29), Simon Nitinol (n = 5), Vena-Tech (n = 3), TrapEase (n = 22), OptEase (n = 3), Tulip (n = 6), Bird's Nest (n = 1), and Recovery (n = 1). During follow-up (mean, 573 days ± 953), postfilter PE was suspected in 10 patients; eight patients underwent computed tomography (CT), one of whom had PE at CT. None developed new symptoms of caval thrombosis. Abdominal CT (performed in 30 patients at a mean of 543 days ± 768) showed thrombus in the filter in three patients, fracture in one patient, and penetration of the IVC wall in two patients. Conclusions: Suprarenal filters are safe and effective in preventing PE. The placement of IVC filters above the renal veins does not carry an added risk of complications.",
author = "Kalva, {Sanjeeva P.} and Chrysanthi Chlapoutaki and Stephan Wicky and Greenfield, {Alan J.} and Waltman, {Arthur C.} and Athanasoulis, {Christos A.}",
year = "2008",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.jvir.2008.03.026",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "1041--1047",
journal = "Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology",
issn = "1051-0443",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Suprarenal Inferior Vena Cava Filters

T2 - A 20-Year Single-Center Experience

AU - Kalva, Sanjeeva P.

AU - Chlapoutaki, Chrysanthi

AU - Wicky, Stephan

AU - Greenfield, Alan J.

AU - Waltman, Arthur C.

AU - Athanasoulis, Christos A.

PY - 2008/7

Y1 - 2008/7

N2 - Purpose: To assess the clinical safety and efficacy of suprarenal inferior vena cava (IVC) filters during long-term follow-up. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, the authors collected the following data about patients who underwent suprarenal IVC filter placement at their institution between 1988 and 2007: demographics, clinical presentation, indications for filter placement, reasons for placing the filter in the suprarenal IVC, type of filter, frequency of pulmonary embolism (PE) after filter placement, and filter-related problems during follow-up. Results: Seventy patients (32 male and 38 female patients; mean age, 60 years) had suprarenal IVC filters. Sixty-two patients presented with symptoms of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and eight had incidental asymptomatic VTE at imaging. Indications for filter placement were as follows: contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 48), complications and/or failure of anticoagulation (n = 12), added protection (n = 8), and prophylaxis (n = 2). Suprarenal placement was chosen due to IVC thrombus (n = 41), intrinsic and/or extrinsic narrowing of the infrarenal IVC (n = 9), renal and/or gonadal vein thrombus (n = 3), congenital IVC anomalies (n = 6), pelvic mass (n = 5), pregnancy (n = 3), and other reasons (n = 3). The following filters were used: Greenfield (n = 29), Simon Nitinol (n = 5), Vena-Tech (n = 3), TrapEase (n = 22), OptEase (n = 3), Tulip (n = 6), Bird's Nest (n = 1), and Recovery (n = 1). During follow-up (mean, 573 days ± 953), postfilter PE was suspected in 10 patients; eight patients underwent computed tomography (CT), one of whom had PE at CT. None developed new symptoms of caval thrombosis. Abdominal CT (performed in 30 patients at a mean of 543 days ± 768) showed thrombus in the filter in three patients, fracture in one patient, and penetration of the IVC wall in two patients. Conclusions: Suprarenal filters are safe and effective in preventing PE. The placement of IVC filters above the renal veins does not carry an added risk of complications.

AB - Purpose: To assess the clinical safety and efficacy of suprarenal inferior vena cava (IVC) filters during long-term follow-up. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, the authors collected the following data about patients who underwent suprarenal IVC filter placement at their institution between 1988 and 2007: demographics, clinical presentation, indications for filter placement, reasons for placing the filter in the suprarenal IVC, type of filter, frequency of pulmonary embolism (PE) after filter placement, and filter-related problems during follow-up. Results: Seventy patients (32 male and 38 female patients; mean age, 60 years) had suprarenal IVC filters. Sixty-two patients presented with symptoms of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and eight had incidental asymptomatic VTE at imaging. Indications for filter placement were as follows: contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 48), complications and/or failure of anticoagulation (n = 12), added protection (n = 8), and prophylaxis (n = 2). Suprarenal placement was chosen due to IVC thrombus (n = 41), intrinsic and/or extrinsic narrowing of the infrarenal IVC (n = 9), renal and/or gonadal vein thrombus (n = 3), congenital IVC anomalies (n = 6), pelvic mass (n = 5), pregnancy (n = 3), and other reasons (n = 3). The following filters were used: Greenfield (n = 29), Simon Nitinol (n = 5), Vena-Tech (n = 3), TrapEase (n = 22), OptEase (n = 3), Tulip (n = 6), Bird's Nest (n = 1), and Recovery (n = 1). During follow-up (mean, 573 days ± 953), postfilter PE was suspected in 10 patients; eight patients underwent computed tomography (CT), one of whom had PE at CT. None developed new symptoms of caval thrombosis. Abdominal CT (performed in 30 patients at a mean of 543 days ± 768) showed thrombus in the filter in three patients, fracture in one patient, and penetration of the IVC wall in two patients. Conclusions: Suprarenal filters are safe and effective in preventing PE. The placement of IVC filters above the renal veins does not carry an added risk of complications.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=45849143279&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=45849143279&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jvir.2008.03.026

DO - 10.1016/j.jvir.2008.03.026

M3 - Article

C2 - 18589318

AN - SCOPUS:45849143279

VL - 19

SP - 1041

EP - 1047

JO - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

JF - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

SN - 1051-0443

IS - 7

ER -