The safety and effectiveness of celect inferior vena cava filter evaluated by CT
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1005-1201.2018.08.010
- VernacularTitle: Celect下腔静脉滤器安全性及有效性的CT评估
- Author:
Boxiang ZHAO
1
;
Jianping GU
;
Xu HE
;
Jinhua SONG
;
Wensheng LOU
;
Liang CHEN
;
Guoping CHEN
;
Haobo SU
;
Wanyin SHI
;
Tao WANG
Author Information
1. Department of Interventional Radiology, Nanjing Hospital (Nanjing First Hospital), Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210006, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Vena cava filters;
Venous thrombosis;
Lower extremity;
Tomography, X-ray computed
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiology
2018;52(8):619-623
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the safety and effectiveness of the Celect inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) in the treatment of deep venous thrombosis (DVT).
Methods:CT follow-up examinations were performed in 72 patients who underwent Celect inferior vena cava filter placement between August 2015 and September 2017. Forty-five patients (62.5%) presented with DVT alone, 27(37.5%) with DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE). With filters in place, each patient was followed up with CT at least once, to visualize new pulmonary embolism, inferior vena cava occlusion, filter tilting, fracture of struts, migration and penetration of struts through the inferior vena cava. Caval penetration was graded on a five-point scale.
Results:All Celect filters were successfully deployed. The interval between the filter placement and the CT was 5.0 to 695.0 days, mean (42.4±84.6)days. No new pulmonary embolism, cava occlusion, filter fracture and migration were found. Forty-two (58.3%) filters tilted, including tilt>15 degrees in 8 (11.1%) and tilt ≤15 degrees in 34 (47.2%). Caval penetration with 0 grade was observed in 47 (65.3%) and beyond grade 1 was observed in 25 (34.7%), including grade Ⅰ in 12 (16.7%), grade Ⅱ in eight (11.1%), grade Ⅲ in four (5.6%) and grade Ⅳ in one (1.4%). No patient presented with symptoms associated with caval penetration. Filter retrieval was attempted in 54(75.0%) patients,the indwell time was 5.0 to 111.0 days, mean(32.0±23.9) days. There were 52 (96.3%) filters successfully removed, including four filters tilted lead retrieval hook embedded the caval wall, which used the adjunctive retrieval techniques. Filter retrieval failure in two (3.7%) cases, including one case retrieval hook embedded the caval wall and the other with retrieval hook penetration.
Conclusions:Celect inferior vena cava filter can effectively prevent PE, but had a tendency to tilt and to penetrate caval wall, which affected the filter retrieval, and had the potential risk of serious complications such as abdominal aortic pseudoaneurysm. The filter should be removed as soon as the risk of PE is manageable. We advocate CT follow-up for patients with long-term inferior vena cava filter placement.
