Complications following caval interruption.
Caval interruption is widely regarded as the treatment of choice for the prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE). The safety, ease of insertion and "convenience" of the devices are the main arguments for filter placement. Today many filters are placed for prophylactic reasons, sometimes without an established diagnosis of pulmonary embolism or underlying deep venous thrombosis. Early and late complications have been published but the rate is reported to be low, although only limited numbers of patients have been followed. In an 18-year period 11 patients with problems following caval interruption were treated, 10 with acute complications, one with chronic caval occlusion. Six were treated conservatively, five underwent venous thrombectomy and a.v.-fistula. The device was removed in four. During the same period only three permanent filters were placed in our hospital (two with complications). Caval interruption is useful in selected high-risk patients and is the least invasive but not necessarily the best treatment. Provided stringent criteria are applied, the early and late complications can be accepted in order to prevent sudden death in patients with threatening massive PE. Extended or more liberal indications for caval interruption are neither necessary nor justified.
Kniemeyer
H W
HW
Clinic of Vascular Surgery and Kidney Transplantation, University of Düsseldorf, Germany.
Sandmann
W
W
Bach
D
D
Torsello
G
G
Jungblut
R M
RM
Grabensee
B
B
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D004867:Equipment Design; D004868:Equipment Failure; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000209:etiology*; D011655:Pulmonary Embolism / Q000517:prevention & control*; D012307:Risk Factors; D017131:Thrombectomy; D013924:Thrombophlebitis / Q000601:surgery*; D016306:Vena Cava Filters