Elsevier

The Surgeon

Volume 15, Issue 2, April 2017, Pages 104-108
The Surgeon

Retrievable IVC filters – Friend or foe

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2016.07.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Venous thromboembolism is a common condition with widely varied outcomes. Pulmonary embolism is associated with a case-fatality rate of up to 8%, increasing up to 18-fold in massive PE. Pharmacological treatment of VTE with anticoagulant medication (AC) is the first line therapy of choice. Retrievable inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) are indicated as a short-term replacement for AC in certain circumstances. Most of the evidence concerning IVCF pertains to permanent filters and older filter models. Limited evidence for retrievable IVCF results in poor consensus regarding indications, follow-up and retrieval. Complications increase with dwell-time and retrieval success rates decline. Professional bodies advocate strict guideline adherence and robust strategies for filter monitoring to maximise retrieval rate.

Introduction

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) encompasses deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolus (PE) and is a common condition with an estimated annual incidence 1–1.6 per 1000 population in the United States and Europe.1, 2, 3 Outcomes vary widely from complete recovery to chronic post-thrombotic syndrome, chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, and fatal pulmonary embolus. Reported all-cause mortality in PE cases varies from 5 to 17%, with specific case-fatality rates varying from 1 to 8%.4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Clinical predictors for fatal PE include the presence of PE compared with DVT alone, immobilisation of more than 4 days for neurological disease, cancer, and advanced age.5 Mortality is increased up to 18-fold in massive PE.

Treatment options for VTE are not without complication and appropriate therapy should be guided by risk stratification for fatal PE.9, 10 Management strategies include treatment of the acute VTE and prevention of recurrence. Pharmacological therapy with anticoagulant medication is first-line for both treatment and secondary prevention of VTE. In the acute setting, this may be supplemented with fibrinolytic therapy for selected high-risk cases. Pharmacomechanical or surgical embolectomy is reserved for acute massive or submassive PE where fibrinolytic therapy is contraindicated or has failed.11 In contrast, inferior vena cava filters do not treat an existing acute DVT or PE; their role is in prevention of recurrent PE in cases where anticoagulation treatment is not possible.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Considering the high prevalence of VTE and its potential mortality, there is an understandable demand for filter placement where pharmacological therapy is unsuitable. However, there is also a growing concern amongst the medical community regarding filter-related adverse events and the relative lack of high-level evidence supporting their use.17 In fact, a recent review of the filter literature concluded that no indication for filter placement is based on appropriate scientific evidence.18

Section snippets

Medical therapy

The mainstay of treatment for VTE is anticoagulant medical therapy, including low molecular weight heparin, vitamin K antagonists and novel anticoagulants. These prevent continued thrombogenesis, facilitating intrinsic thrombolysis and ultimately thrombus resorption.14, 15 Fibrinolytic treatment may be life-saving in massive PE but it is associated with adverse events and its use is controversial for sub-massive PE and contraindicated for haemodynamically stable patients without right

IVC filters

The purpose of IVCF is to prevent life-threatening pulmonary emboli originating from the pelvic or lower limb deep venous system where medical anticoagulant therapy is contra-indicated. It is a non-occlusive device which facilitates caval venous flow but captures and retains large mobile thrombi. Retrievable IVC filters are intended for temporary use and are indicated when the contraindication to anticoagulation is transient, for example in the peri-operative period or in the setting of

Evidence and guidelines (see table 1)

There has been no randomised study directly comparing anticoagulation and IVCF in prevention of VTE. Most of the available literature is retrospective and there is considerable heterogeneity related to the variety of filters available on the market. Much of the oft-quoted literature refers to filters no longer in general use, limiting the general applicability of their findings. The PREPIC (Prévention du Risque d'Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) group carried out the only long-term

Retrieval and registries

This relaxed adherence to guidelines likely reflects an assumption that so-called “temporary” filters may be considered lower risk. However, ineffective tracking of patients results in lack of follow-up and poor retrieval rates, particularly in the USA.25, 38 Several studies have shown the benefits of dedicated filter monitoring databases, filter clinics, personnel responsible for follow-up of retrievable filters and automated booking and reminder systems for retrieval appointments.39, 40, 41

Complications

Procedural complications occurring at insertion or retrieval are uncommon and major complications rare. Reported complications include access site haematoma or thrombosis, pneumothorax, failure of proper deployment resulting in tilt, failure of mechanical retrieval device, jugular vein dissection and self-limiting caval tears.13, 42, 43 Later complications include strut penetration, filter migration, strut fracture and filter thrombosis and these are related to dwell-time.48 Penetration of

Conclusions

Retrievable IVC filters reduce the risk of fatal PE when anticoagulation treatment is contraindicated but they do not offer therapy or risk reduction for DVT, post-thrombotic syndrome or chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Pharmacological therapy should be started or reinstated at the earliest opportunity. Guidelines are limited by a paucity of high-quality evidence specific to retrievable filters and are poorly adhered to. Retrieval rates are variable and can be improved by

References (52)

  • J.A. Kaufman 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)
  • A. Muriel et al.

    Survival effects of inferior vena cava filter in patients with acute symptomatic venous thromboembolism and a significant bleeding risk

    J Am Coll Cardiol

    (2014)
  • J.A. Kaufman et al.

    Development of a research agenda for inferior vena cava filters: proceedings from a multidisciplinary research consensus panel

    J Vasc Interv Radiol

    (2009)
  • P.D. Stein et al.

    Increasing use of vena cava filters for prevention of pulmonary embolism

    Am J Med

    (2011)
  • O. Dabbagh et al.

    Retrievable inferior vena cava filters are not getting retrieved: where is the gap?

    Thromb Res

    (2010)
  • J. Minocha et al.

    Improving inferior vena cava filter retrieval rates: impact of a dedicated inferior vena cava filter clinic

    J Vasc Interv Radiol

    (2010)
  • R. Al-Hakim et al.

    Inferior vena cava filter retrieval: effectiveness and complications of routine and advanced techniques

    J Vasc Interv Radiol

    (2014)
  • J.K. Lee et al.

    Clinical course and predictive factors for complication of inferior vena cava filters

    Thromb Res

    (2014)
  • K.V. James et al.

    Tricuspid insufficiency after intracardiac migration of a Greenfield filter: case report and review of the literature

    J Vasc Surg

    (1996)
  • A.T. Cohen et al.

    Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in Europe. The number of VTE events and associated morbidity and mortality

    Thromb Haemost

    (2007)
  • J.A. Heit et al.

    The epidemiology of venous thromboembolism

    J Thromb Thrombolysis

    (2016)
  • R.H. White

    The epidemiology of venous thromboembolism

    Circulation

    (2003)
  • S. Laporte et al.

    Clinical predictors for fatal pulmonary embolism in 15,520 patients with venous thromboembolism: findings from the Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbolica venosa (RIETE) Registry

    Circulation

    (2008)
  • F.A. Spencer et al.

    Factors associated with adverse outcomes in outpatients presenting with pulmonary embolism: the Worcester Venous Thromboembolism Study

    Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes

    (2010)
  • A.C. Ng et al.

    Long-term cardiovascular and noncardiovascular mortality of 1023 patients with confirmed acute pulmonary embolism

    Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes

    (2011)
  • M.R. Jaff et al.

    Management of massive and submassive pulmonary embolism, iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis, and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association

    Circulation

    (2011)
  • Cited by (4)

    • Costs and complications of endovascular inferior vena cava filter retrieval

      2019, Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders
    • Venous thromboembolism and IVC filters

      2017, Interventional Radiology for Medical Students
    View full text