Skip to main content
Log in

Multicenter investigation of the incidence of inferior vena cava filter fracture

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Japanese Journal of Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Inferior vena cava filter fracture (FF) may cause life-threatening complications, including cardiac tamponade, although the actual prevalence remains unclear. Therefore, we investigated the incidence of FF.

Materials and methods

Data on fracture incidence with filter brands, filter positions [suprarenal (SR) vs. infrarenal (IR)], and follow-up durations were collected from the databases of eight hospitals.

Results

Of 532 patients, Günther Tulip (GT), Trap/OptEase (TE/OE), ALN and VenaTech (VT) were implanted in 345, 147, 38 and 2 patients, respectively. Of these, filter retrieval was attempted in 110 (21.7%) patients and was successful in 106 (96.4%). Of the remaining 426 patients, FFs were observed in two (0.7%) of 270 GT filters and 19 (14.1%) of 135 TE/OE filters. Fragment embolization occurred in one patient with a GT filter (50.0%) and three with a TE/OE filter (15.8%) with a total follow-up interval of 718.0 ± 1019.4 days. FF occurred more frequently in TE/OE than in GT filters (p < 0.001). Kaplan–Meier estimates showed significantly higher fracture-free rates for GT than TE/OE (p < 0.001) and IR-TE/OE than SR-TE/OE (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

TE/OE filters are not suitable for permanent implantation due to the relatively early and high fracture rates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Decousus H, Leizorovicz A, Parent F, et al. A clinical trial of vena caval filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis: Prevention du Risque d’Embolie Pulmpnaire par Interruption Cave Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:409–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. The PREPIC Study Group. Eight-year follow-up of patients with permanent vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism: the PREPIC ramdomized study. Circulation. 2005;112:416–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Friedell ML, Goldenkranz RJ, Parsonnet V, et al. Migration of a Greenfield filter to the pulmonary artery: a case report. J Vasc Surg. 1986;3:929–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kaufman JA, Thomas JW, Geller SC, Rivitz SM, Waltman AC. Guide-wire entrapment by inferior vena cava filters: in vitro evaluation. Radiology. 1996;198:71–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Stravropoulos SW, Itkin M, Trerotola SO. In vitro study of guide wire entrapment in currently available inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14:905–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rogers NA, Nguyen L, Minniefield NE, Jessen ME, de Lemos JA. Fracture and embolization of an inferior vena cava filter strut leading to cardiac tamponade. Circulation. 2009;119(18):2535–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nicholson W, Nicholson WJ, Tolerico P, et al. Prevalence of fracture and fragment embolization of Bard retrievable vena cava filters and clinical implications including cardiac perforation and tamponade. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1827–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Custodio Martinez RLM. Diagnostics for choosing between log-rank and Wilcoxon tests. Dissertations. 2007; 895.

  9. Ferris EJ, McCowan TC, Carver DK, McFarland DR. Percutaneous inferior vena caval filters: follow-up of seven designs in 320 patients. Radiology. 1993;188(3):851–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Stein PD, Matta F, Hull RD. Increasing use of vena cava filters for prevention of pulmonary embolism. Am J Med. 2011;124(7):655–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ziegler JW, Dietrich GJ, Cohen SA, Sterling K, Duncan J, Samotowka M. PROOF trial: protection from pulmonary embolism with the OptEase filter. JVIR. 2008;19(8):1165–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Onat L, Ganiyusufoglu AK, Mutlu A, et al. OptEase and TrapEase vena cava filters: a single-center experience in 258 patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2009;32:992–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sano M, Unno N, Yamamoto N, Tanaka H, Konno H. Frequent fracture of TrapEase inferior vena cava filters: a long-term follow-up assessment. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(2):189–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dowell JK, Wang W, Spain JW. Symptomatic perforation of a Günther Tulip inferior vena cava filter with subsequent strut fracture and pulmonary embolization. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2014;37(6):1643–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hoffer EK, Mueller RJ, Luciano MR, Lee NN, Michaels AT, Gemery JM. Safety and efficacy of the Günther Tulip retrievable vena cava filter: midterm outcomes. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2013;36(4):998–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. US Food and Drug Agency. MAUDE: manufacturer and user facility device experience. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/search.cfm. Accessed 18 Feb 2013.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jun Koizumi.

Ethics declarations

The protocol of this nonrandomised, multicenter retrospective trial was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of all participating centers.

Informed consent

Informed consent was waived because of the retrospective nature of the study.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koizumi, J., Hara, T., Sekiguchi, T. et al. Multicenter investigation of the incidence of inferior vena cava filter fracture. Jpn J Radiol 36, 661–668 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-018-0764-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-018-0764-x

Keywords

Navigation