CVIR Endovascular (Mar 2022)

A single center 9-year experience in IVC filter retrieval - the importance of an IVC filter registry

  • Mark Sheehan,
  • Kristopher Coppin,
  • Cormac O’Brien,
  • Andrew McGrath,
  • Mark Given,
  • Aoife Keeling,
  • Michael J Lee

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s42155-022-00291-5
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 5, no. 1
pp. 1 – 6

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background To evaluate Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval practices over a 9-year period at an academic hospital with a prospectively maintained IVC filter registry. Method An IVC filter registry was maintained prospectively within our institution. We reviewed cases between August 2011 and June 2020, following filter status, retrieval plans, and eventual retrieval date. The validity of the database was cross referenced with a Picture Archiving and Communication System and patient records. Results Three hundred forty-three patients had IVC filters inserted. Three filter types were used, Celect (Cook Medical) in 189, Gunther Tulip (GT) (Cook Medical) in 65, ALN (ALN) in 89. 196 (57%) filters were retrieved, 108 (31.5%) were made permanent, 36 (10.5%) died before retrieval, and 3 (1%) were yet to be retrieved. Retrieval rates were 92.5% overall (86% for GT, 93% for Celect and 94.5% for ALN). The mean dwell time for successful retrieval was 59 days with the majority of insertions (85%) removed in under 100 days. Failed initial retrieval occurred in 23 patients, 10 (43%) were retrieved at second attempt, 13/23 filters remained in-situ and were deemed permanent. Conclusion The removal of IVC filters, when indication for insertion has past, is no longer the sole responsibility of the referring physician but also the responsibility of the Interventionalist. Our retrieval rates of 92.5% of eligible IVC filters highlights the value of maintaining a prospective IVC filter registry.