Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objectives

The placement of inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) continues to rise. Vascular specialists adopt different practices based on local expertise. This study was performed to assess the attitudes of vascular specialists towards the placement and retrieval of IVCF.

Methods

An online survey of 28 questions related to practice patterns regarding IVCF was administered to 1429 vascular specialists. Vascular specialists were categorized as low volume if they place less than three IVCF per month and high volume if they place at least three IVCF per month. The responses of high volume and low volume were compared using two-sample t-tests and Chi-square tests.

Results

A total of 259 vascular specialists completed the survey (18% response rate). There were 191 vascular surgeons (74%) and 68 interventional radiologists (26%). The majority of responders were in academic practice (67%) and worked in tertiary care centers (73%). The retrievable IVCF of choice was Celect (27%) followed by Denali (20%). Forty-two percent used a temporary IVCF and left it in situ instead of using a permanent IVCF. Eighty-two percent preferred placing the tip of the IVCF at or just below the lowest renal vein. Thirty-one percent obtained a venous duplex of the lower extremities prior to retrieval while 24% did not do any imaging. There were 132 (51%) low volume vascular specialists and 127 (49%) high volume vascular specialists. Compared to low volume vascular specialists, significantly more high volume vascular specialists reported procedural times of less than 30 min for IVCF retrieval (57% vs. 42%, P = 0.026). There was a trend for high volume to have fewer unsuccessful attempts at IVCF retrieval but that did not reach statistical significance (P = .061). High volume were more likely to have attempted multiple times to retrieve an IVCF (66% vs. 33%, P < .001), and to have used bronchoscopy forceps (32% vs. 14%, P = .001) or a laser sheath (14% vs. 2%, P < .001) for IVCF retrieval. In general, vascular specialists were not comfortable using bronchoscopy forceps (65%) or a laser sheath (82%) for IVCF retrieval.

Conclusions

This study underscores significant variability in vascular specialists practice patterns regarding IVCF. More studies and societal guidelines are needed to define best practices.

Keywords

Inferior vena cava filter placement vascular specialist inferior vena cava filter retrieval

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Greenfield

McCurdy

Brown

et al . A new intracaval filter permitting continued flow and resolution of emboli. Surgery 1973; 73: 599–606.

Rectenwald

JE.

Vena cava filters: uses and abuses. Semin Vasc Surg 2005; 18: 166–175.

Keeling

Kinney

Lee

MJ.

Optional inferior vena caval filters: where are we now?

Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 1556–1568.

Stein

Kayali

Olson

RE.

Twenty-one-year trends in the use of inferior vena cava filters. Arch Intern Med 2004; 164: 1541–1545.

Duszak

Jr Parker

Levin

et al . Placement and removal of inferior vena cava filters: national trends in the medicare population. J Am Coll Radiol 2011; 8: 483–489.

Kaufman

Kinney

Streiff

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; 17: 449–459.

Caplin

Nikolic

Kalva

et al . Quality improvement guidelines for the performance of inferior vena cava filter placement for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011; 22: 1499–1506.

Kearon

Akl

Ornelas

et al . Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest 2016; 149: 315–352.

Kearon

Akl

Comerota

et al . Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed.: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012; 141: e419S–e494S.

10.

Gaspard

DJ.

Retrievable inferior vena cava filters are rarely removed. Am Surg 2009; 75: 426–428.

11.

Angel

Tapson

Galgon

et al . Systematic review of the use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011; 22: 1522–1530.e3.

12.

Kuo

Deso

Robertson

SW.

Vena Tech LGM filter retrieval 16 years after implantation: piecemeal removal by intentional mechanical fracture. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2013; 24: 1731–1737.

13.

Stavropoulos

Dixon

Burke

et al . Embedded inferior vena cava filter removal: use of endobronchial forceps. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2008; 19: 1297–1301.

14.

Kuo

Odegaard

Louie

et al . Photothermal ablation with the excimer laser sheath technique for embedded inferior vena cava filter removal: initial results from a prospective study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011; 22: 813–823.

15.

Iliescu

Haskal

ZJ.

Advanced techniques for removal of retrievable inferior vena cava filters. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2012; 35: 741–750.

16.

Al-Hakim

Kee

Olinger

et al . Inferior vena cava filter retrieval: effectiveness and complications of routine and advanced techniques. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2014; 25: 933–939; quiz 40.

17.

Al-Hakim

McWilliams

Derry

et al . The hangman technique: a modified loop snare technique for the retrieval of inferior vena cava filters with embedded hooks. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2015; 26: 107–110.

18.

Wang

Singer

MA.

Toward an optimal position for inferior vena cava filters: computational modeling of the impact of renal vein inflow with Celect and TrapEase filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2010; 21: 367–374; quiz 74.

19.

Lynch

FC.

A method for following patients with retrievable inferior vena cava filters: results and lessons learned from the first 1,100 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011; 22: 1507–1512.

20.

Minocha

Idakoji

Riaz

et al . Improving inferior vena cava filter retrieval rates: impact of a dedicated inferior vena cava filter clinic. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2010; 21: 1847–1851.

21.

Reynolds

Nicholas

et al . Institutional protocol improves retrievable inferior vena cava filter recovery rate. Surgery 2009; 146: 809–814; discussion 14–16.

22.

Lee

Valenti

de Gregorio

et al . The CIRSE retrievable IVC filter registry: retrieval success rates in practice. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2015; 38: 1502–1507.

23.

Warner

Richey

Tower

et al . Inferior vena cava filter retrieval provides no advantage in the average patient. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2015; 3: 142–146.

24.

Quirke

Ritota

Swan

KG.

Inferior vena caval filter use in U.S. trauma centers: a practitioner survey. J Trauma 1997; 43: 333–337.

25.

Rajasekhar

Elmariah

Lottenberg

et al . Inferior vena cava filters in trauma patients: a national practice patterns survey of U.S. Trauma centers. Am Surg 2014; 80: 1237–1244.

26.

Friedell

Nelson

Cheatham

ML.

Vena cava filter practices of a regional vascular surgery society. Ann Vasc Surg 2012; 26: 630–635.

27.

Dobrow

Orchard

Golden

et al . Response audit of an Internet survey of health care providers and administrators: implications for determination of response rates. J Med Internet Res 2008; 10: e30.

28.

Sheehan

KB.

E-mail survey response rates: a review. J Comput Mediat Commun 2006; 6.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.09 MB

A survey of vascular specialists’ practice patterns of inferior vena cava filter placement and retrieval