Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Clinical comparison of two optional vena cava filters


Keller, Isabella S; Meier, Christoph; Pfiffner, Roger; Keller, Emanuela; Pfammatter, Thomas (2007). Clinical comparison of two optional vena cava filters. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 18(4):505-511.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical safety and efficiency of two optional inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ninety-three consecutive Günther Tulip filters (92 patients) were compared with 83 consecutive OptEase filters (80 patients). Filters were placed at the same institution in patients with high-risk multiple trauma or those undergoing neurosurgery with contraindications to primary prophylaxis (70 patients in the Günther Tulip group and 44 in the OptEase group) and in patients with venous thromboembolism and contraindications to anticoagulation (22 patients in the Günther Tulip group and 36 in the OptEase group). The filters were placed in an angiography suite. Catheter vena cavography was performed before filter placement and intended retrieval. Permanent filters were followed-up with duplex ultrasonography and conventional radiography.

RESULTS

All filters were inserted infrarenally without any complications. Fluoroscopy times for placement and retrieval were longer for the Günther Tulip group than the OptEase group. The mean dwelling time was 11 days (range, 3-27 days) for the Günther Tulip filters and 13.8 days (range, 1-34 days) for the OptEase filters. No symptomatic pulmonary emboli (PE) occurred in patients with intended temporary filtration while the devices were in place. Forty-six of the 93 Günther Tulip filters (49%) and 58 of the 83 OptEase filters (70%) were removed. Two Günther Tulip filters could not be retrieved for technical reasons. The mean follow-up for the permanent Günther Tulip (n = 19) and OptEase (n = 8) filters was 41 and 7 months, respectively. One patient from each group had late caval thrombosis. There were no cases of filter migration or disintegration.

CONCLUSION

Both optional IVC filters are safe and seem to prevent symptomatic PE. On the basis of the fluoroscopy times, the OptEase filters appear to be more operator-friendly. Late filter-associated complications are rare with these filter designs.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical safety and efficiency of two optional inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ninety-three consecutive Günther Tulip filters (92 patients) were compared with 83 consecutive OptEase filters (80 patients). Filters were placed at the same institution in patients with high-risk multiple trauma or those undergoing neurosurgery with contraindications to primary prophylaxis (70 patients in the Günther Tulip group and 44 in the OptEase group) and in patients with venous thromboembolism and contraindications to anticoagulation (22 patients in the Günther Tulip group and 36 in the OptEase group). The filters were placed in an angiography suite. Catheter vena cavography was performed before filter placement and intended retrieval. Permanent filters were followed-up with duplex ultrasonography and conventional radiography.

RESULTS

All filters were inserted infrarenally without any complications. Fluoroscopy times for placement and retrieval were longer for the Günther Tulip group than the OptEase group. The mean dwelling time was 11 days (range, 3-27 days) for the Günther Tulip filters and 13.8 days (range, 1-34 days) for the OptEase filters. No symptomatic pulmonary emboli (PE) occurred in patients with intended temporary filtration while the devices were in place. Forty-six of the 93 Günther Tulip filters (49%) and 58 of the 83 OptEase filters (70%) were removed. Two Günther Tulip filters could not be retrieved for technical reasons. The mean follow-up for the permanent Günther Tulip (n = 19) and OptEase (n = 8) filters was 41 and 7 months, respectively. One patient from each group had late caval thrombosis. There were no cases of filter migration or disintegration.

CONCLUSION

Both optional IVC filters are safe and seem to prevent symptomatic PE. On the basis of the fluoroscopy times, the OptEase filters appear to be more operator-friendly. Late filter-associated complications are rare with these filter designs.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
27 citations in Web of Science®
29 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Institute of Intensive Care Medicine
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Scopus Subject Areas:Health Sciences > Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
Health Sciences > Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
Language:English
Date:April 2007
Deposited On:23 Nov 2020 16:03
Last Modified:24 Nov 2020 21:00
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:1051-0443
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2007.02.007
Related URLs:https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/11172/
PubMed ID:17446541

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher

Get full-text in a library