metricas

Radiología

Sugerencias
Radiología Retirada difícil de filtro de vena cava inferior (FVCI). Consideraciones técni...
Información de la revista
Vol. 65. Núm. 3.
Páginas 193-288 (Mayo - Junio 2023)
Cita
Cita
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Visitas
1468
Vol. 65. Núm. 3.
Páginas 193-288 (Mayo - Junio 2023)
Original

Retirada difícil de filtro de vena cava inferior (FVCI). Consideraciones técnicas y variables asociadas

Difficult withdrawal of an inferior vena cava filter: technical considerations and associated variables
Visitas
1468
E. Serranoa,
Autor para correspondencia
elena.serrano.1991@gmail.com

Autor para correspondencia.
, E. Vila-Triasb, F. Zarcoa, C. Zamora Martínezc, J. Moisésd, F.M. Gómeza, A. López-Ruedaa
a Sección Radiología Vascular e Intervencionista, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, España
b Servicio Radiología, Hospital Universitari Sagrat Cor, Barcelona, España
c Servicio Oncología Médica, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, España
d Hospital Clínic-IDIBAPS, Universitat de Barcelona, CIBERES, Barcelona, España
Este artículo ha recibido
Información del artículo
Resumen
Texto completo
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Resumen
Objetivo

Analizar la eficacia del procedimiento de retirada de los filtros de la vena cava inferior (FVCI), así como los factores clínico-radiológicos asociados a una retirada difícil.

Material y método

Estudio retrospectivo, observacional y unicéntrico de pacientes tratados mediante retirada de FVCI entre mayo del 2015 y mayo del 2021. Se recogieron variables clínico-demográficas, del procedimiento y radiológicas: tipo de FVCI, angulación respecto a la vena cava inferior (VCI) >15°, gancho contra la pared y patas del dispositivo incrustadas en la pared de VCI> 3mm. Las variables de eficacia fueron: tiempo de fluoroscopia, éxito en la retirada del FVCI y número de intentos hasta la retirada. Como variables de seguridad: presencia de complicaciones, retirada quirúrgica y mortalidad. La variable principal fue la retirada difícil, definida como más de 5min de fluoroscopia o más de un intento de retirada.

Resultados

Se incluyó a 109 pacientes, 54 (49,5%) fueron considerados retirada difícil. Las variables radiológicas gancho contra la pared (33,3% vs. 9,1%; p=0,027), patas incrustadas (20,4% vs. 3,6%; p=0,008) y> 45 días desde la colocación (51,9% vs. 25,5%; p=0,006) fueron significativamente más frecuentes en el grupo de retirada difícil. Estas variables mantienen la asociación al analizar los FVCI Optease®. En los FVCI Celect® solo se asoció con retirada difícil la inclinación del FVCI> 15° (25% vs. 0%; p=0,029).

Conclusión

Se ha encontrado asociación entre una retirada difícil y las siguientes variables: tiempo desde colocación del FVCI, patas incrustadas y contacto del gancho con la pared de VCI. Al analizar según el tipo de FVCI, estas variables se mantienen en el tipo Optease®, en cambio, la inclinación de más de 15° dificulta la retirada de los dispositivos de morfología cónica (Celect®)

Palabras clave:
Vena cava inferior
Filtro de vena cava
Trombosis venosa
Tromboembolia pulmonar
Procedimientos endovasculares
Abstract
Objective

To analyze the efficacy of the procedure for withdrawing an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter and the clinical and radiological factors associated with difficult withdrawal.

Material and methods

This retrospective observational study included patients who underwent IVC filter withdrawal at a single center between May 2015 and May 2021. We recorded demographic, clinical, procedural, and radiological variables: type of IVC filter, angle with the IVC> 15°, hook against the wall, and legs embedded in the IVC wall> 3mm. The efficacy variables were fluoroscopy time, success of IVC filter withdrawal, and number of attempts to withdraw the filter. The safety variables were complications, surgical removal, and mortality. The main variable was difficult withdrawal, defined as more than 5minutes fluoroscopy or more than 1 attempt at withdrawal.

Results

A total of 109 patients were included; withdrawal was considered difficult in 54 (49.5%). Three radiological variables were more common in the difficult withdrawal group: hook against the wall (33.3% vs. 9.1%; p=0.027), embedded legs (20.4% vs. 3.6%; p=0.008), and>45 days since IVC filter placement (51.9% vs. 25.5%; p=0.006). These variables remained significant in the subgroup of patients with OptEase IVC filters; however, in the group of patients with Celect IVC filters, only the inclination of the IVC filter>15° was significantly associated with difficult withdrawal (25% vs 0%; p=0.029).

Conclusion

Difficult withdrawal was associated with time from IVC placement, embedded legs, and contact between the hook and the wall. The analysis of the subgroups of patients with different types of IVC filters found that these variables remained significant in those with OptEase filters; however, in those with cone-shaped devices (Celect), the inclination of the IVC filter>15° was significantly associated with difficult withdrawal.

Keywords:
Inferior vena cava
Vena cava filter
Venous thrombosis
Pulmonary embolism
Endovascular procedures

Artículo

Opciones para acceder a los textos completos de la publicación Radiología
Suscriptor
Suscriptor de la revista

Si ya tiene sus datos de acceso, clique aquí.

Si olvidó su clave de acceso puede recuperarla clicando aquí y seleccionando la opción "He olvidado mi contraseña".
Comprar
Comprar acceso al artículo

Comprando el artículo el PDF del mismo podrá ser descargado

Comprar ahora
Contactar
Teléfono para suscripciones e incidencias
De lunes a viernes de 9h a 18h (GMT+1) excepto los meses de julio y agosto que será de 9 a 15h
Llamadas desde España
932 415 960
Llamadas desde fuera de España
+34 932 415 960
E-mail
Bibliografía
[1]
A.T. Cohen, G. Agnelli, F.A. Anderson, J.I. Arcelus, D. Bergqvist, J.G. Brecht, et al.
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in Europe The number of VTE events and associated morbidity and mortality.
Thromb Haemost., 98 (2007), pp. 756-764
[2]
M.G. Beckman, W.C. Hooper, S.E. Critchley, T.L. Ortel.
Venous thromboembolism: A public health concern.
Am J Prev Med., 38 (2010), pp. S495-S501
[3]
T.L. Ortel, I. Neumann, W. Ageno, R. Beyth, N.P. Clark, A. Cuker, et al.
American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: Treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.
Blood Adv., 4 (2020), pp. 4693-4738
[4]
M.N. Levine, G. Raskob, S. Landefeld, C. Kearon.
Hemorrhagic complications of anticoagulant treatment.
Chest., 119 (2001), pp. 21S-108S
[5]
J. Minocha, A.M. Smith, B.S. Kapoor, N. Fidelman, T.R. Cain, D.M. Caplin, et al.
ACR Appropriateness Criteria.
J Am Coll Radiol., 16 (2019), pp. S26-S214
[6]
M.J. Lee, D. Valenti, M.A. de Gregorio, J. Minocha, U. Rimon, O. Pellerin.
The CIRSE Retrievable IVC Filter Registry: Retrieval success rates in practice.
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol., 38 (2015), pp. 1502-1507
[7]
R.M. Marron, P. Rali, P. Hountras, T.M. Bull.
Inferior vena cava filters: Past, present, and future.
Chest., 158 (2020), pp. 2579-2589
[8]
J.A. Kaufman, G.D. Barnes, R.A. Chaer, J. Cuschieri, R.T. Eberhardt, M.S. Johnson, Society of Interventional Radiology Clinical Practice Guideline for inferior vena cava filters in the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolic disease: Developed in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology, American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, American Heart Association, Society for Vascular Surgery, and Society for Vascular Medicine, et al.
J Vasc Interv Radiol., 31 (2020), pp. 1529-1544
[9]
US Food & Drug Administration. Removing retrievable inferior vena cava filters: FDA Safety Communication [consultado 12 Jul 2022]. Disponible en: https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170111070016/http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm396377.htm.
[10]
L.F. Angel, V. Tapson, R.E. Galgon, M.I. Restrepo, J. Kaufman.
Systematic review of the use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters.
J Vasc Interv Radiol., 22 (2011), pp. 1522-1530
[11]
T.G. Van Ha.
Complications of inferior vena caval filters.
Semin Intervent Radiol., 23 (2006), pp. 150-155
[12]
E.D. McLoney, V.P. Krishnasamy, J.C. Castle, X. Yang, G. Guy.
Complications of Celect Günther tulip, and Greenfield inferior vena cava filters on CT follow-up: Aa single-institution experience.
J Vasc Interv Radiol., 24 (2013), pp. 1723-1729
[13]
M.A. De Gregorio, J.A. Guirola, J. Urbano, I. Díaz-Lorenzo, J.J. Muñoz, E. Villacastin, et al.
Spanish multicenter real-life registry of retrievable vena cava filters (REFiVeC).
CVIR Endovasc., 3 (2020), pp. 26
[14]
K.R. Desai, J.L. Laws, R. Salem, S.K. Mouli, M.F. Errea, J.K. Karp, et al.
Defining prolonged dwell time: When are advanced inferior vena cava filter retrieval techniques necessary?.
An analysis in 762 procedures. Circ Cardiovasc Interv., 10 (2017), pp. e003957
[15]
L.A. Dinglasan, J.C. Oh, J.E. Schmitt, S.O. Trerotola, R.D. Shlansky-Goldberg, S.W. Stavropoulos.
Complicated inferior vena cava filter retrievals: associated factors identified at preretrieval CT.
Radiology., 266 (2013), pp. 347-354
[16]
G. Kuyumcu, T.G. Walker.
Inferior vena cava filter retrievals, standard and novel techniques.
Cardiovasc Diagn Ther., 6 (2016), pp. 642-650
[17]
L. Rubenstein, A.K. Chun, M. Chew, C.A. Binkert.
Loop-snare technique for difficult inferior vena cava filter retrievals.
J Vasc Interv Radiol., 18 (2007), pp. 1315-1318
[18]
D.K. Filippiadis, C. Binkert, O. Pellerin, R.T. Hoffmann, A. Krajina, P.L. Pereira.
Cirse quality assurance document and standards for classification of complications: The Cirse Classification System.
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol., 40 (2017), pp. 1141-1146
[19]
K.B. Quencer, T.A. Smith, A. Deipolyi, H. Mojibian, R. Ayyagari, I. Latich, et al.
Procedural complications of inferior vena cava filter retrieval, an illustrated review.
CVIR Endovasc., 3 (2020), pp. 23
[20]
W. Clements, H.K. Moriarty, E. Paul, G.S. Goh.
Stratification of pre-procedure risk factors associated with difficult-to-remove inferior vena cava (IVC) filters: A 6-year retrospective analysis at a tertiary center.
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol., 43 (2020), pp. 238-245
[21]
P. Geisbüsch, J.F. Benenati, C.S. Peña, J. Couvillon, A. Powell, R. Gandhi, et al.
Retrievable inferior vena cava filters: Factors that affect retrieval success.
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol., 35 (2012), pp. 1059-1065
[22]
M.A. De Gregorio, J.A. Guirola, C. Serrano, A. Figueredo, W.T. Kuo, C.A. Quezada, et al.
Success in optional vena cava filter retrieval.
An analysis of 246 patients. Arch Bronconeumol., S0300–2896 (2018),
[23]
[Cordis's Electronic Instructions for Use (eIFU) website. Optease Vena Cava Filter] [consultado 16 Jul 2022]. Disponible en: https://cordislabeling.com/results/brandName/optease.
[24]
[Cook Medical. Celect TM Platinum Vena Cava Filter] [consultado 16 Jul 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.cookmedical.com/products/3901d990-413b-493d-8445-44a72334cb6d/.
[25]
J.C. Durack, A.C. Westphalen, S. Kekulawela, S.B. Bhanu, D.E. Avrin, R.L. Gordon, et al.
Perforation of the IVC: Rule rather than exception after longer indwelling times for the Günther Tulip and Celect retrievable filters.
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol., 35 (2012), pp. 299-308
[26]
Z. Jia, A. Wu, M. Tam, J. Spain, J.M. McKinney, W. Wang.
Caval penetration by inferior vena cava filters: A systematic literature review of clinical significance and management.
Circulation., 132 (2015), pp. 944-952
[27]
K.R. Desai, M.B. Pandhi, S.M. Seedial, M.F. Errea, R. Salem, R.K. Ryu, I.V.C. Retrievable, et al.
filters: Comprehensive review of device-related complications and advanced retrieval techniques.
Radiographics., 37 (2017), pp. 1236-1245
[28]
M. Kleedehn, K. Moore, K. Longo, K. Woo, P. Laeseke.
An analysis of factors associated with increased fluoroscopy time or the need for complex techniques at IVC filter retrieval.
Eur Radiol., 29 (2019), pp. 1931-1938
asdasdasd
Opciones de artículo
Herramientas