Mechanisms of Günther Tulip filter tilting during transfemoral placement

Lateral tilt during IVC filter placement does not predict the need for advanced filter retrieval techniques

PURPOSE

We aimed to determine if lateral inferior vena cava (IVC) filter tilt at placement predicts the need for subsequent advanced retrieval techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed of all Gunther Tulip IVC filter placements with subsequent retrievals between February 2015 and October 2017. Chart and imaging review was performed for patient, filter placement, and filter retrieval demographics/characteristics. Degree of agreement between two measurement sets was evaluated with the intraclass correlation (ICC) analysis. Categorical variables were compared with chi-square or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. Kendall rank correlation was used to measure correlation between categorical variables.

RESULTS

There was poor agreement between filter tilt angle at the time of placement and retrieval (ICC coefficient, 0.54). Mean difference ± standard deviation between tilt angle at the time of placement and retrieval was 4.6°±4.3° (p = 0.35). Among patient- or procedure-related factors, a common femoral vein access on placement (regression coefficient, -2.90; p = 0.039) was associated with a lower difference between placement and retrieval filter tilt angles compared to internal jugular vein access. Higher filter tilt angle measured at the time of retrieval (OR: 1.19, p = 0.025), hook embedment (OR: 77.3, p < 0.001), and a longer dwell time (OR: 1.25, p = 0.002) were associated with the need for advanced retrieval techniques. However, in univariate and multivariate analysis filter tilt angle at the time of placement was not associated with the subsequent need for advanced retrieval technique (p = 0.16).

CONCLUSION

Lateral tilt at the time of placement is poorly associated with lateral tilt at the time of retrieval and does not correlate with the need for advanced retrieval technique.

An expert spotlight on inferior vena cava filters

Introduction: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are mechanical filtration devices designed as an alternative to surgical ligation/plication of the IVC. Their use has been controversial, especially with the introduction of retrievable filters and expanded/prophylactic indications.Areas covered: Authors discuss the types of available IVC filters, indications for placement, evidence on their effectiveness in general and specific patient populations, procedural considerations, off-label use, complications, and filter retrieval. This review is based on manuscripts/abstracts published from 1960 to 2021 on venous thromboembolism and IVC filters.Expert opinion: Despite the limited data on their effectiveness and survival benefit, IVC filters continue to play an important role in the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) who cannot receive standard anticoagulation. There is no role of IVC filters in patients without VTE. While retrievable filters are desirable for short-term use, a dedicated team-based approach, and advanced training are required for their successful removal. Newer devices are promising in improving patient safety . The device manufacturers and regulatory agencies should consider specific approaches to track device-related adverse events. Population-based studies are required to establish optimal patient population who would benefit from these devices. .

Over-the-wire deployment techniques of option elite inferior vena cava filter: 3D printing vena cava phantom study

•

Bent stiff-wire technique with transfemoral access had lower filter tilt ratio at Option IVC filter deployment.

•

Original push wire with transjugular access had lower filter tilt ratio at Option IVC filter deployment.

•

Filter jumping was common using the original push wire with transjugular access.

Purpose

To compare filter tilt and filter jumping during Option inferior vena cava (IVC) filter deployment with 3 different wires techniques using a 3-dimensional (3D) printing vena cava phantom.

Materials and methods

An IVC 3D printed vena cava phantom was made from a healthy young male’s computed tomographic data. Option IVC filters were deployed with 3 different wires: i) original push wire, ii) hydrophilic stiff wire, and iii) bent stiff wire. Right internal jugular and right femoral access were used 5 times with each wire. Filter tilt angle, tilt ratio, jumping, and tip abutment to the IVC wall were analyzed.

Results

The transfemoral approach with original push wire had significantly higher tilt angle than did the transjugular approach (6.1˚ ± 1.9 vs. 3.5˚ ± 1.3, p = 0.04). Mean tilt ratio was significantly lower with the bent wire with transfemoral access (0.49 ± 0.13 vs. 0.78 ± 0.18 [original push-wire] and 0.67 ± 0.08 [stiff wire], p = 0.019). The ratio was lower also with original push wire with transjugular access (0.34 ± 0.19 vs. 0.57 ±0.11 [stiff wire] and 0.58 ±0.17 [bent wire], p = 0.045). Filter jumping occurred more often with the transjugular approach with original push wire than with stiff or bent-wire delivery. Filter tip abutment to the IVC wall occurred only with the transfemoral approach.

Conclusions

Bent wire with transfemoral access and original push wire with transjugular access had lower filter tilt ratio at Option IVC filter deployment. However, filter jumping was common using the original push wire with transjugular access.