3.8 Article

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

期刊

CVIR ENDOVASCULAR
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1186/s42155-022-00291-5

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the retrieval practices of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters at an academic hospital over a 9-year period. The results showed a high retrieval rate of 92.5% for eligible IVC filters, highlighting the importance of maintaining a prospective IVC filter registry.
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.

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

3.8
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