Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · TH Open 2021; 05(01): e73-e80
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1722707
Original Article

Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval Trends: A Single-Center Experience

Filip Ionescu 
1   Department of Internal Medicine, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Michigan, United States
,
Nwabundo Anusim
2   Department of Hematology-Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Michigan, United States
,
Eva Ma
1   Department of Internal Medicine, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Michigan, United States
,
Lihua Qu
3   Beaumont Health Research Institute, Royal Oak, Michigan, United States
,
LeAnn M. Blankenship
2   Department of Hematology-Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Michigan, United States
,
Michael Stender
2   Department of Hematology-Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Michigan, United States
,
Ishmael Jaiyesimi
2   Department of Hematology-Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Michigan, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Recognition of the adverse events of inferior vena cava filters (VCFs) has prompted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue safety warnings (2010 and 2014), advocating for removal, once the risk of pulmonary embolism has abated. Despite an initial increase in retrieval rates, these remain low (25–30% at 1 year in 2014). We retrospectively investigated retrieval trends in adults with VCFs placed between 2015 and 2018 at a single institution. The rate of retrievable VCF removal accounting for the competing risk of death was the main outcome. There were 494 VCFs placed (305 retrievable). The cumulative incidence of retrieval remained low (21% at 1 year), even after the second FDA warning (2014). Patients who resumed anticoagulation (AC) at any time were more likely to have retrieval (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.6, p < 0.01) and had higher retrieval rates at every time point (31.4 vs. 7.6% at 1 year). Advanced age (HR = 0.98 per year, p = 0.004), stroke (HR = 0.28, p = 0.028), and active malignancy (HR = 0.42, p = 0.006) predicted nonretrieval. Device-related complications were infrequent (<1%) but thrombotic complications occurred early and were more common for nonretrieved VCFs (17 vs. 12%, p = 0.29). Revision of guidelines to recommend active surveillance for the ability to tolerate AC in the immediate postimplantation period may improve retrieval rates.

Keywords

IVC filter - retrieval - thrombosis - filter failure - practice trends

Authors' Contributions

All authors contributed to data collection, analysis, and manuscript revision. F.I. and N.A. contributed equally as cofirst authors to the design of the study, data analysis, and manuscript preparation. All authors approved the final version.




Publication History

Received: 30 March 2020

Accepted: 10 December 2020

Article published online:
10 February 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Stein PD, Matta F. Vena cava filters in unstable elderly patients with acute pulmonary embolism. Am J Med 2014; 127 (03) 222-225
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Muriel A, Jiménez D, Aujesky D. et al; RIETE Investigators. Survival effects of inferior vena cava filter in patients with acute symptomatic venous thromboembolism and a significant bleeding risk. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 63 (16) 1675-1683
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 White RH, Brunson A, Romano PS, Li Z, Wun T. Outcomes after vena cava filter use in noncancer patients with acute venous thromboembolism: a population-based study. Circulation 2016; 133 (21) 2018-2029
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Sarosiek S, Rybin D, Weinberg J, Burke PA, Kasotakis G, Sloan JM. Association between inferior vena cava filter insertion in trauma patients and in-hospital and overall mortality. JAMA Surg 2017; 152 (01) 75-81
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Turner TE, Saeed MJ, Novak E, Brown DL. Association of inferior vena cava filter placement for venous thromboembolic disease and a contraindication to anticoagulation with 30-day mortality. JAMA Netw Open 2018; 1 (03) e180452
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Decousus H, Leizorovicz A, Parent F. et al. A clinical trial of vena caval filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis. Prévention du Risque d'Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave Study Group. N Engl J Med 1998; 338 (07) 409-415
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Mismetti P, Laporte S, Pellerin O. et al; PREPIC2 Study Group. Effect of a retrievable inferior vena cava filter plus anticoagulation vs anticoagulation alone on risk of recurrent pulmonary embolism: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2015; 313 (16) 1627-1635
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Wang SL, Lloyd AJ. Clinical review: inferior vena cava filters in the age of patient-centered outcomes. Ann Med 2013; 45 (07) 474-481
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Casajuana E, Mellado M, Cebrià M. et al. Changing trends in inferior vena cava filter indication for venous thromboembolism over the last two decades: a retrospective observational study. Int Angiol 2020; 39 (04) 276-283
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Nicholson W, Nicholson WJ, Tolerico P. et al. Prevalence of fracture and fragment embolization of Bard retrievable vena cava filters and clinical implications including cardiac perforation and tamponade. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170 (20) 1827-1831
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Removing retrievable inferior vena cava filters: initial communication. Accessed December 26, 2020 at: https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170112002302/http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm221676.htm
  • 12 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Removing retrievable inferior vena cava filters: FDA safety communication. Accessed December 26, 2020 at: https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170111070016/http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm396377.htm
  • 13 Angel LF, Tapson V, Galgon RE, Restrepo MI, Kaufman J. Systematic review of the use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011; 22 (11) 1522-1530.e3
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Morales JP, Li X, Irony TZ, Ibrahim NG, Moynahan M, Cavanaugh Jr KJ. Decision analysis of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in patients without pulmonary embolism. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2013; 1 (04) 376-384
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Reddy S, Lakhter V, Zack CJ, Zhao H, Chatterjee S, Bashir R. Association between contemporary trends in inferior vena cava filter placement and the 2010 US Food and Drug Administration advisory. JAMA Intern Med 2017; 177 (09) 1373-1374
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Ahmed O, Wadhwa V, Patel K, Patel MV, Turba UC, Arslan B. Rising retrieval rates of inferior vena cava filters in the United States: insights from the 2012 to 2016 summary Medicare claims data. J Am Coll Radiol 2018; 15 (11) 1553-1557
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Charalel RA, Durack JC, Mao J, Ross JS, Meltzer AJ, Sedrakyan A. Statewide inferior vena cava filter placement, complications, and retrievals: epidemiology and recent trends. Med Care 2018; 56 (03) 260-265
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Brown JD, Raissi D, Han Q, Adams VR, Talbert JC. Vena cava filter retrieval rates and factors associated with retrieval in a large US cohort. J Am Heart Assoc 2017; 6 (09) x
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Ko SH, Reynolds BR, Nicholas DH. et al. Institutional protocol improves retrievable inferior vena cava filter recovery rate. Surgery 2009; 146 (04) 809-814 , discussion 814–816
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Roberts LN, Ammar T, Czuprynska J, Arya R, Wilkins CJ. Automated inferior vena cava filter retrieval requests and hematology liaison improves retrieval and reduces the use of temporary inferior vena cava filters. TH Open 2020; 4 (02) e116-e118
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Cao P, Li Y, Liu X. et al. A better inferior vena cava filter retrieval rate: A retrospective study in a single-center institution. Phlebology 2020; 35 (06) 424-429
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Winters JP, Morris CS, Holmes CE. et al. A multidisciplinary quality improvement program increases the inferior vena cava filter retrieval rate. Vasc Med 2017; 22 (01) 51-56
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Wang J, Han J, Li Y. et al. Impact of surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation on the progression of tricuspid regurgitation and right-sided heart remodeling after mitral-valve surgery: a propensity-score matching analysis. J Am Heart Assoc 2016; 5 (12) x
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Friedell ML, Nelson PR, Cheatham ML. Vena cava filter practices of a regional vascular surgery society. Ann Vasc Surg 2012; 26 (05) 630-635
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Kuban JD, Lee SR, Yevich S. et al. Changes in inferior vena cava filter placement and retrieval practice patterns from a population health perspective. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2020; 45 (11) 3907-3914
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Buso G, Alatri A, Calanca L. et al. Why optional inferior vena cava filters are not always retrieved? A real world 19 years experience in a Swiss tertiary care university hospital. Eur J Intern Med 2020; 76: 64-70
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 De Gregorio MA, Guirola JA, Urbano J. et al. Spanish multicenter real - life registry of retrievable vena cava filters (REFiVeC). CVIR Endovasc 2020; 3 (01) 26
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Kaufman JA, Kinney TB, Streiff MB. et al. Guidelines for the use of retrievable and convertible vena cava filters: report from the Society of Interventional Radiology multidisciplinary consensus conference. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006; 17 (03) 449-459
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 DeYoung E, Minocha J. Inferior vena cava filters: guidelines, best practice, and expanding indications. Semin Intervent Radiol 2016; 33 (02) 65-70
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Khorana AA, Noble S, Lee AYY. et al. Role of direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost 2018; 16 (09) 1891-1894
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Desai TR, Morcos OC, Lind BB. et al. Complications of indwelling retrievable versus permanent inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2014; 2 (02) 166-173
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Smith SC, Shanks C, Guy G, Yang X, Dowell JD. Social and demographic factors influencing inferior vena cava filter retrieval at a single institution in the United States. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2015; 38 (05) 1186-1191
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Mohapatra A, Liang NL, Chaer RA, Tzeng E. Persistently low inferior vena cava filter retrieval rates in a population-based cohort. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2019; 7 (01) 38-44
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Desai KR, Lewandowski RJ, Salem R. et al. Retrieval of inferior vena cava filters with prolonged dwell time: a single-center experience in 648 retrieval procedures. JAMA Intern Med 2015; 175 (09) 1572-1574
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Minocha J, Idakoji I, Riaz A. et al. Improving inferior vena cava filter retrieval rates: impact of a dedicated inferior vena cava filter clinic. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2010; 21 (12) 1847-1851
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Lynch FC. A method for following patients with retrievable inferior vena cava filters: results and lessons learned from the first 1,100 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011; 22 (11) 1507-1512
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Sutphin PD, Reis SP, McKune A, Ravanzo M, Kalva SP, Pillai AK. Improving inferior vena cava filter retrieval rates with the define, measure, analyze, improve, control methodology. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2015; 26 (04) 491-8.e1
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Clements W, Moriarty HK, Paul E, Goh GS. Stratification of pre-procedure risk factors associated with difficult-to-remove inferior vena cava (IVC) filters: a 6-year retrospective analysis at a tertiary center. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2020; 43 (02) 238-245
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Kleedehn M, Moore K, Longo K, Woo K, Laeseke P. An analysis of factors associated with increased fluoroscopy time or the need for complex techniques at IVC filter retrieval. Eur Radiol 2019; 29 (04) 1931-1938
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Hinojosa CA, Olivares-Cruz S, Laparra-Escareno H, Gomez-Arcive Z, Anaya-Ayala JE. Incidence of thrombotic events and complications associated to inferior vena cava filters in patients with and without anticoagulation therapy. Arch Cardiol Mex 2019; 89 (03) 196-201
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar