Cargando…

Safety and efficacy of inferior vena cava filter retrieval: a 5-year single center retrospective review from a tertiary care center

BACKGROUND: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval is typically accomplished with standard snare technique. When this fails, more advanced techniques are necessary, especially when removal falls outside a 12-month window. Complications during filter retrieval depend heavily on technique, type of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schuchardt, Philip, Kis, Lilla, Goloubev, Alexey, Keshishian, Edward, Mhaskar, Rahul, Hoots, Glenn, Davis, Cliff, Massis, Kamal, Shaikh, Jamil
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9357242/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35932376
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42155-022-00316-z
_version_ 1784763669615214592
author Schuchardt, Philip
Kis, Lilla
Goloubev, Alexey
Keshishian, Edward
Mhaskar, Rahul
Hoots, Glenn
Davis, Cliff
Massis, Kamal
Shaikh, Jamil
author_facet Schuchardt, Philip
Kis, Lilla
Goloubev, Alexey
Keshishian, Edward
Mhaskar, Rahul
Hoots, Glenn
Davis, Cliff
Massis, Kamal
Shaikh, Jamil
author_sort Schuchardt, Philip
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval is typically accomplished with standard snare technique. When this fails, more advanced techniques are necessary, especially when removal falls outside a 12-month window. Complications during filter retrieval depend heavily on technique, type of filter, and filter position. In this study we examined safety and efficacy of 536 filter retrievals at a tertiary care center and compared complication rates between standard snare and endobronchial forcep retrieval. METHOD: We reviewed 536 cases between August 2015 and August 2020, recording retrieval success rates, patient comorbidities, and complication rates at the time of removal. RESULTS: Total overall retrieval success was 97.9% (525/536), and complications occurred in approximately 6.0% (32/536) of all cases. Success and complications with standard snare technique alone were 99.4% (345/347) and 1.7% (5 Grade I/II, 1 Grade III) and advanced forcep technique 98.8% (171/173) and 14.5% (22 Grade I/II, 2 Grade III, and 1 Grade IV), respectively. There was no significant difference between the technical success rates of the standard snare technique and forceps techniques (p = 0.60) despite a significantly longer dwell time in patients undergoing forceps retrieval (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the largest cohort of forceps directed IVC filter retrieval present in the literature. Rates of successful endobronchial forceps and standard snare retrievals in this study are similar to previous reports. Although use of endobronchial forceps may be associated with higher complication rates, this is likely due to prolonged dwell times, filter tilt, and attempted removal of non retrievable filters. Overall, forceps-directed retrieval offers a safe, effective means of removal in difficult cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3, Large Retrospective Study.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9357242
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93572422022-08-08 Safety and efficacy of inferior vena cava filter retrieval: a 5-year single center retrospective review from a tertiary care center Schuchardt, Philip Kis, Lilla Goloubev, Alexey Keshishian, Edward Mhaskar, Rahul Hoots, Glenn Davis, Cliff Massis, Kamal Shaikh, Jamil CVIR Endovasc Original Article BACKGROUND: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval is typically accomplished with standard snare technique. When this fails, more advanced techniques are necessary, especially when removal falls outside a 12-month window. Complications during filter retrieval depend heavily on technique, type of filter, and filter position. In this study we examined safety and efficacy of 536 filter retrievals at a tertiary care center and compared complication rates between standard snare and endobronchial forcep retrieval. METHOD: We reviewed 536 cases between August 2015 and August 2020, recording retrieval success rates, patient comorbidities, and complication rates at the time of removal. RESULTS: Total overall retrieval success was 97.9% (525/536), and complications occurred in approximately 6.0% (32/536) of all cases. Success and complications with standard snare technique alone were 99.4% (345/347) and 1.7% (5 Grade I/II, 1 Grade III) and advanced forcep technique 98.8% (171/173) and 14.5% (22 Grade I/II, 2 Grade III, and 1 Grade IV), respectively. There was no significant difference between the technical success rates of the standard snare technique and forceps techniques (p = 0.60) despite a significantly longer dwell time in patients undergoing forceps retrieval (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the largest cohort of forceps directed IVC filter retrieval present in the literature. Rates of successful endobronchial forceps and standard snare retrievals in this study are similar to previous reports. Although use of endobronchial forceps may be associated with higher complication rates, this is likely due to prolonged dwell times, filter tilt, and attempted removal of non retrievable filters. Overall, forceps-directed retrieval offers a safe, effective means of removal in difficult cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3, Large Retrospective Study. Springer International Publishing 2022-08-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9357242/ /pubmed/35932376 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42155-022-00316-z Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Schuchardt, Philip
Kis, Lilla
Goloubev, Alexey
Keshishian, Edward
Mhaskar, Rahul
Hoots, Glenn
Davis, Cliff
Massis, Kamal
Shaikh, Jamil
Safety and efficacy of inferior vena cava filter retrieval: a 5-year single center retrospective review from a tertiary care center
title Safety and efficacy of inferior vena cava filter retrieval: a 5-year single center retrospective review from a tertiary care center
title_full Safety and efficacy of inferior vena cava filter retrieval: a 5-year single center retrospective review from a tertiary care center
title_fullStr Safety and efficacy of inferior vena cava filter retrieval: a 5-year single center retrospective review from a tertiary care center
title_full_unstemmed Safety and efficacy of inferior vena cava filter retrieval: a 5-year single center retrospective review from a tertiary care center
title_short Safety and efficacy of inferior vena cava filter retrieval: a 5-year single center retrospective review from a tertiary care center
title_sort safety and efficacy of inferior vena cava filter retrieval: a 5-year single center retrospective review from a tertiary care center
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9357242/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35932376
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42155-022-00316-z
work_keys_str_mv AT schuchardtphilip safetyandefficacyofinferiorvenacavafilterretrievala5yearsinglecenterretrospectivereviewfromatertiarycarecenter
AT kislilla safetyandefficacyofinferiorvenacavafilterretrievala5yearsinglecenterretrospectivereviewfromatertiarycarecenter
AT goloubevalexey safetyandefficacyofinferiorvenacavafilterretrievala5yearsinglecenterretrospectivereviewfromatertiarycarecenter
AT keshishianedward safetyandefficacyofinferiorvenacavafilterretrievala5yearsinglecenterretrospectivereviewfromatertiarycarecenter
AT mhaskarrahul safetyandefficacyofinferiorvenacavafilterretrievala5yearsinglecenterretrospectivereviewfromatertiarycarecenter
AT hootsglenn safetyandefficacyofinferiorvenacavafilterretrievala5yearsinglecenterretrospectivereviewfromatertiarycarecenter
AT daviscliff safetyandefficacyofinferiorvenacavafilterretrievala5yearsinglecenterretrospectivereviewfromatertiarycarecenter
AT massiskamal safetyandefficacyofinferiorvenacavafilterretrievala5yearsinglecenterretrospectivereviewfromatertiarycarecenter
AT shaikhjamil safetyandefficacyofinferiorvenacavafilterretrievala5yearsinglecenterretrospectivereviewfromatertiarycarecenter