Non-permanent inferior vena cava filters for prophylaxis and treatment of lower limb venous thromboembolism.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare our recent clinical experience with temporary inferior vena cava (IVC) filters (TF) and retrievable IVC filters (RF).


METHODS
Patients who received TF or RF implantation between October 2002 and May 2009 were studied. The early clinical outcomes between the 2 groups were compared.


RESULTS
Nonpermanent IVC filters were placed in 119 patients (34 in TF and 85 in RF). Retrieval of RF and removal of TF were successful in 98.7% and 100%, respectively. The incidence of filter-related complications for TF was significantly higher than for RF (26.5% vs 3.5%; P = .0004). However, no symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) was observed during filter placement.


CONCLUSIONS
TF and RF provided similar protection from PE. We prefer RF because they can be left in permanently if it is impossible to remove or retrieve the filter for some reason.
Hiromatsu
Shinichi
S
Department of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, Fukuoka-ken, Japan. kaeru@med.kurume-u.ac.jp
Nata
Shinichi
S
Ohno
Tomokazu
T
Shintani
Yusuke
Y
Kanaya
Kurando
K
Sakashita
Hideki
H
Fukunaga
Shuji
S
Aoyagi
Shigeaki
S
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D020878:Device Removal; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007564:Japan; D035002:Lower Extremity / Q000098:blood supply*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D011655:Pulmonary Embolism / Q000209:etiology / Q000517:prevention & control*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012307:Risk Factors; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D016306:Vena Cava Filters / Q000009:adverse effects; D054556:Venous Thromboembolism / Q000209:etiology / Q000517:prevention & control*; D020246:Venous Thrombosis / Q000150:complications / Q000628:therapy*; D055815:Young Adult