Characteristic analysis of patients with inferior vena cava filters removed_CHINESE JOURNAL OF BASES AND CLINICS IN GENERAL SURGERY

Authors：

HOU Li ¹ , HE Yunyun ² , WANG Tiehao ² , CHEN Xiyang ² , WU Zhoupeng ² , DU Xiaojiong ² , YANG Yi ² , YUAN Ding ² , HUANG Bin ² ,  ZHAO Jichun ² , MA Yukui ²

1. Day Surgery Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R China;
2. Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China;

Corresponding author：

ZHAO Jichun, Email: mayukui@scu.edu.cn

Keywords：

inferior vena cava filter; complications; treatment modality

DOI：

10.7507/1007-9424.202412116

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To understand the characteristics of patients who have undergone the removal of the inferior vena cava (IVC) filter so as to provide a reference for optimizing the clinical application strategy of IVC filters. Method The demographic and clinical characteristics of patients underwent IVC filter removal in the Department of Vascular Surgery of West China Hospital, Sichuan University from December 2016 to December 2023 were retrospectively collected. Results A total of 102 patients were enrolled, including 48(47.1%) males and 54(52.9%) females. The age of the patients was (46.75±16.72) years old, and 75(73.5%) patients were aged between 20 and 59 years old. The proportion of patients who had an IVC filter placed due to concurrent central deep vein thrombosis was the highest, accounting for 48.0% (49/102). Among them, 72(70.6%) patients had the filter removed within 90 d, and 6(5.9%) patients had the filter removed after more than one year. The median duration of filter placement for all patients was 35 d (ranging from 5 to 7 300 d). The filter was removed via interventional method in 91(89.2%) patients, and via open surgery in 10(9.8%) patients. In 1(1.0%) patient failed by endovascular retrieval and followed-up observation. Compared with the interventional treatment, patients who had the filter removed by open surgery had a longer placement time of the filter in the body (median: 32.5 d vs. 136.5 d, P=0.002). Conclusions From the analysis results of this cases data, patients with IVC filters don’t show obvious gender characteristics. The majority of them are young and middle-aged, and interventional method is mostly used for the removal of IVC filters. Patients who use open surgery to remove the filter have a longer placement time in the IVC, suggesting the necessity of early removal of the IVC filter.

1.	Heit JA, Spencer FA, White RH. The epidemiology of venous thromboembolism. J Thromb Thrombolysis, 2016, 41(1): 3-14.
2.	Lee LH, Gallus A, Jindal R, et al. Incidence of venous thromboembolism in Asian POpulations: A systematic review. Thromb Haemost, 2017, 117(12): 2243-2260.
3.	Zhang Z, Lei J, Shao X, et al. Trends in hospitalization and in-hospital mortality from VTE, 2007 to 2016, in China. Chest, 2019, 155(2): 342-353.
4.	Sentíes AC, Carrera NF, Gordillo OG. Inferior vena cava ligation versus the Mobin-Uddin filter for prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism. Int Surg, 1977, 62(8): 420-425.
5.	Saeed MJ, Turner TE, Brown DL. Trends in inferior vena cava filter placement by indication in the United States from 2005 to 2014. JAMA Intern Med. 2017, 177(12): 1861-1862.
6.	Reddy S, Lakhter V, Zack CJ, et al. Association between contemporary trends in inferior vena cava filter placement and the 2010 US food and drug administration advisory. JAMA Intern Med, 2017, 177(9): 1373-1374.
7.	Keeling AN, Kinney TB, Lee MJ. Optional inferior vena caval filters: where are we now? Eur Radiol, 2008, 18(8): 1556-1568.
8.	Angel LF, Tapson V, Galgon RE, et al. Systematic review of the use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2011, 22(11): 1522-1530. e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2011.08.024.
9.	Bistervels IM, Buchmüller A, Tardy B. Inferior vena cava filters in pregnancy: Safe or sorry? Front Cardiovasc Med, 2022, 9: 1026002. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.1026002.
10.	Brown JD, Raissi D, Han Q, et al. Vena cava filter retrieval rates and factors associated with retrieval in a large US cohort. J Am Heart Assoc, 2017, 6(9): e006708. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.117.006708.
11.	Swersky A, Desai KR. Inferior vena cava filter retrieval: Simple to complex. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 2024, 47(12): 1642-1649.
12.	Wang J, Zhou Y, Wang T. Abdominal aortic penetration caused by an incidentally discovered inferior vena cava filter. Eur Heart J, 2024, 45(39): 4242. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehae275.
13.	Deso SE, Idakoji IA, Kuo WT. Evidence-based evaluation of inferior vena cava filter complications based on filter type. Semin Intervent Radiol, 2016, 33(2): 93-100.
14.	Meyer A, Schönleben F, Heinz M, et al. Perforated inferior vena cava filters as the cause of unclear abdominal pain. Ann Vasc Surg, 2013, 27(3): 354. e9-354. e12. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2012.08.006.
15.	Hagedorn JC, Morton JM. Pulmonary embolus after retrieval of a temporary inferior vena caval filter in a Jehovah's Witness undergoing gastric bypass surgery. Obes Surg, 2006, 16(8): 1096-1100.

1. Heit JA, Spencer FA, White RH. The epidemiology of venous thromboembolism. J Thromb Thrombolysis, 2016, 41(1): 3-14.
2. Lee LH, Gallus A, Jindal R, et al. Incidence of venous thromboembolism in Asian POpulations: A systematic review. Thromb Haemost, 2017, 117(12): 2243-2260.
3. Zhang Z, Lei J, Shao X, et al. Trends in hospitalization and in-hospital mortality from VTE, 2007 to 2016, in China. Chest, 2019, 155(2): 342-353.
4. Sentíes AC, Carrera NF, Gordillo OG. Inferior vena cava ligation versus the Mobin-Uddin filter for prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism. Int Surg, 1977, 62(8): 420-425.
5. Saeed MJ, Turner TE, Brown DL. Trends in inferior vena cava filter placement by indication in the United States from 2005 to 2014. JAMA Intern Med. 2017, 177(12): 1861-1862.
6. Reddy S, Lakhter V, Zack CJ, et al. Association between contemporary trends in inferior vena cava filter placement and the 2010 US food and drug administration advisory. JAMA Intern Med, 2017, 177(9): 1373-1374.
7. Keeling AN, Kinney TB, Lee MJ. Optional inferior vena caval filters: where are we now? Eur Radiol, 2008, 18(8): 1556-1568.
8. Angel LF, Tapson V, Galgon RE, et al. Systematic review of the use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2011, 22(11): 1522-1530. e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2011.08.024.
9. Bistervels IM, Buchmüller A, Tardy B. Inferior vena cava filters in pregnancy: Safe or sorry? Front Cardiovasc Med, 2022, 9: 1026002. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.1026002.
10. Brown JD, Raissi D, Han Q, et al. Vena cava filter retrieval rates and factors associated with retrieval in a large US cohort. J Am Heart Assoc, 2017, 6(9): e006708. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.117.006708.
11. Swersky A, Desai KR. Inferior vena cava filter retrieval: Simple to complex. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 2024, 47(12): 1642-1649.
12. Wang J, Zhou Y, Wang T. Abdominal aortic penetration caused by an incidentally discovered inferior vena cava filter. Eur Heart J, 2024, 45(39): 4242. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehae275.
13. Deso SE, Idakoji IA, Kuo WT. Evidence-based evaluation of inferior vena cava filter complications based on filter type. Semin Intervent Radiol, 2016, 33(2): 93-100.
14. Meyer A, Schönleben F, Heinz M, et al. Perforated inferior vena cava filters as the cause of unclear abdominal pain. Ann Vasc Surg, 2013, 27(3): 354. e9-354. e12. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2012.08.006.
15. Hagedorn JC, Morton JM. Pulmonary embolus after retrieval of a temporary inferior vena caval filter in a Jehovah's Witness undergoing gastric bypass surgery. Obes Surg, 2006, 16(8): 1096-1100.

CHINESE JOURNAL OF BASES AND CLINICS IN GENERAL SURGERY

Latest ArticlesCharacteristic analysis of patients with inferior vena cava filters removed

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Format

Content