Inferior vena caval filters: 5 years of experience in a tertiary care center

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Interruption of the Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) is recommended in certain cases to prevent Pulmonary Embolism (PE). Reported data on the efficacy and rate of complications vary considerably. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who had a temporary or permanent IVC filter inserted at our institution during the past 5 years. RESULTS: Seventy-seven of 225 patients (34%) with Venous Thrombosis (VT) had an IVC filter inserted. Deep vein thrombosis and PE were the most common causes for anticoagulation. Bleeding was the reason for IVC filter insertion in 48 (62%). The only complication found was the breaking of a temporary filter during removal related to the procedure. However, 3 patients (out of 10) had a recurrence of VT after prolonged discontinuation of anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: Our criteria for indication of IVC filter insertion are in line with current standard of care. The immediate and delayed complications caused by IVC filter insertion was low. Active bleeding was the most common indication for filter insertion, whereas inherited thrombophilia was relatively common.