Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.  2017 Dec;50(6):443-447. 10.5090/kjtcs.2017.50.6.443.

Should We Remove the Retrievable Cook Celect Inferior Vena Cava Filter? Eight Years of Experience at a Single Center

• Son J
• Bae M
• Chung SW
• Lee CW
• Huh U
• Song S

• KMID: 2398375
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5090/kjtcs.2017.50.6.443

Abstract

BACKGROUND
The inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) is very effective for preventing pulmonary embolism in patients who cannot undergo anticoagulation therapy. However, if a filter is placed in the body permanently, it may lead to other complications.
METHODS
A retrospective study was performed of 159 patients who underwent retrievable Cook Celect IVCF implantation between January 2007 and April 2015 at a single center. Baseline characteristics, indications, and complications caused by the filter were investigated.
RESULTS
The most common underlying disease of patients receiving the filter was cancer (24.3%). Venous thrombolysis or thrombectomy was the most common indication for IVCF insertion in this study (47.2%). The most common complication was inferior vena cava penetration, the risk of which increased the longer the filter remained in the body (p=0.032, Exp(B)=1.004).
CONCLUSION
If the patient is able to retry anticoagulation therapy and the filter is no longer needed, the filter should be removed, even if a long time has elapsed since implantation. If the filter cannot be removed, it is recommended that follow-up computed tomography be performed regularly to monitor the progress of venous thromboembolisms as well as any filter-related complications.

Keyword

Vena cava filter; Pulmonary embolism; Venous thrombosis

MeSH Terms

Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Pulmonary Embolism
Retrospective Studies
Thrombectomy
Thromboembolism
Vena Cava Filters*
Vena Cava, Inferior*
Venous Thrombosis