4.4 Article

Incidence and Management of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Thrombus Detected at Time of Filter Retrieval

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2011.08.006

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cook (Bloomington, Indiana)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate inferior vena cava (IVC) venograms (ie, cavograms) before filter retrieval to determine the incidence and volume of filter thrombus relative to filter dwell time and evaluate subsequent changes in thrombus volume with additional anticoagulation. Materials and Methods: IVC filter retrieval attempts between December 2002 and June 2010 were retrospectively reviewed to determine the incidence of filter thrombus and estimate thrombus volume on a preretrieval cavogram. Correlation between filter dwell times (assessed at 30-d intervals) and incidence and volume of thrombus was assessed. Follow-up images and management of filters with thrombus that were not initially removed were analyzed. Results: A total of 463 retrieval attempts were performed in 440 patients, with a mean filter dwell time of 95 days +/- 145 (SD; range, 0-1,762 d). Thirty (6.5%) had filter thrombus on initial cavograms, with a mean thrombus volume of 2.8 cm(3) +/- 7.3 (range, 0.04-40.02 cm(3)). Incidence rate and estimated thrombus volume were highest in the 0-30-day dwell interval (8.0% and 6.3 cm(3), respectively) and decreased at subsequent time intervals. On linear regression analysis, incidence of filter thrombus was inversely related to dwell time (P < .05; con-elation coefficient, -0.86). Seven patients with thrombus underwent additional anticoagulation for a mean of 48 days +/- 25 (range, 14-90 d); thrombus resolved completely in five (71%) and partially in one (14%), and increased in one (14%). Conclusions: The incidence of filter thrombus at the time of filter retrieval appears to decrease with dwell time. If thrombus is detected, an additional period of anticoagulation is likely to reduce the thrombus burden and facilitate later retrieval.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据