Cargando…

Comparative outcomes of Inferior Vena Cava filters placed at bedside using digital radiography versus conventional fluoroscopy

PURPOSE: To retrospectively assess the outcomes of Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filters placed in critically ill patients in the ICU at bedside using digital radiograph (DR) guidance with previous cross-sectional imaging for planning, compared to IVC filters placed by conventional fluoroscopy (CF). METH...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Walker, John A., Milam, Matthew, Lopera, Jorge E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: KeAi Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8562161/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34805962
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jimed.2021.05.001
_version_ 1784593204363919360
author Walker, John A.
Milam, Matthew
Lopera, Jorge E.
author_facet Walker, John A.
Milam, Matthew
Lopera, Jorge E.
author_sort Walker, John A.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To retrospectively assess the outcomes of Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filters placed in critically ill patients in the ICU at bedside using digital radiograph (DR) guidance with previous cross-sectional imaging for planning, compared to IVC filters placed by conventional fluoroscopy (CF). METHOD AND MATERIALS: The cohort consisted of 129 IVC filter placements; 48 placed at bedside and 81 placed conventionally from July 2015 to September 2016. Patient demographics, indication, radiation exposures, access site, procedural duration, dwell time, and complications were identified by the EMR. IVC Filter positioning with measurements of tip to renal vein distance and lateral filter tilt were performed when cavograms or post placement CTs were available for review. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata IC 11.2. RESULTS: Technical success of the procedure was 100% in both groups. Procedural duration was longer at the bedside lasting 14.5 +/- 10.2 versus 6.7 +/- 6.0 ​min (p<0.0001). The bedside DR group had a median radiation exposure of 25 ​mGy (15–35) and the CF group had mean radiation exposure of 256.94 ​mGy +/- 158.6. There was no significant difference in distance of IVC tip to renal vein (p=0.31), mispositioning (p=0.59), degree of filter tilt (p=0.33), or rate of complications (p=0.65) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: IVCF placement at the bedside using DR is comparable to CF with no statistical difference in outcomes based on IVCF positioning, degree of lateral tilt or removal issues. It decreased radiation dose, but with overall increased procedural time.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8562161
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher KeAi Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85621612021-11-19 Comparative outcomes of Inferior Vena Cava filters placed at bedside using digital radiography versus conventional fluoroscopy Walker, John A. Milam, Matthew Lopera, Jorge E. J Interv Med Article PURPOSE: To retrospectively assess the outcomes of Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filters placed in critically ill patients in the ICU at bedside using digital radiograph (DR) guidance with previous cross-sectional imaging for planning, compared to IVC filters placed by conventional fluoroscopy (CF). METHOD AND MATERIALS: The cohort consisted of 129 IVC filter placements; 48 placed at bedside and 81 placed conventionally from July 2015 to September 2016. Patient demographics, indication, radiation exposures, access site, procedural duration, dwell time, and complications were identified by the EMR. IVC Filter positioning with measurements of tip to renal vein distance and lateral filter tilt were performed when cavograms or post placement CTs were available for review. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata IC 11.2. RESULTS: Technical success of the procedure was 100% in both groups. Procedural duration was longer at the bedside lasting 14.5 +/- 10.2 versus 6.7 +/- 6.0 ​min (p<0.0001). The bedside DR group had a median radiation exposure of 25 ​mGy (15–35) and the CF group had mean radiation exposure of 256.94 ​mGy +/- 158.6. There was no significant difference in distance of IVC tip to renal vein (p=0.31), mispositioning (p=0.59), degree of filter tilt (p=0.33), or rate of complications (p=0.65) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: IVCF placement at the bedside using DR is comparable to CF with no statistical difference in outcomes based on IVCF positioning, degree of lateral tilt or removal issues. It decreased radiation dose, but with overall increased procedural time. KeAi Publishing 2021-05-12 /pmc/articles/PMC8562161/ /pubmed/34805962 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jimed.2021.05.001 Text en © 2021 Shanghai Journal of Interventional Radiology Press. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Walker, John A.
Milam, Matthew
Lopera, Jorge E.
Comparative outcomes of Inferior Vena Cava filters placed at bedside using digital radiography versus conventional fluoroscopy
title Comparative outcomes of Inferior Vena Cava filters placed at bedside using digital radiography versus conventional fluoroscopy
title_full Comparative outcomes of Inferior Vena Cava filters placed at bedside using digital radiography versus conventional fluoroscopy
title_fullStr Comparative outcomes of Inferior Vena Cava filters placed at bedside using digital radiography versus conventional fluoroscopy
title_full_unstemmed Comparative outcomes of Inferior Vena Cava filters placed at bedside using digital radiography versus conventional fluoroscopy
title_short Comparative outcomes of Inferior Vena Cava filters placed at bedside using digital radiography versus conventional fluoroscopy
title_sort comparative outcomes of inferior vena cava filters placed at bedside using digital radiography versus conventional fluoroscopy
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8562161/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34805962
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jimed.2021.05.001
work_keys_str_mv AT walkerjohna comparativeoutcomesofinferiorvenacavafiltersplacedatbedsideusingdigitalradiographyversusconventionalfluoroscopy
AT milammatthew comparativeoutcomesofinferiorvenacavafiltersplacedatbedsideusingdigitalradiographyversusconventionalfluoroscopy
AT loperajorgee comparativeoutcomesofinferiorvenacavafiltersplacedatbedsideusingdigitalradiographyversusconventionalfluoroscopy