DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Introducer Curving Technique for the Prevention of Tilting of Transfemoral G$\ddot{u}$nther Tulip Inferior Vena Cava Filter

  • Xiao, Liang (Department of Radiology, The First Hospital of China Medical University) ;
  • Huang, De-Sheng (Department of Mathematics, College of Basic Medical Science, China Medical University) ;
  • Shen, Jing (Department of Radiology, The First Hospital of China Medical University) ;
  • Tong, Jia-Jie (Department of Radiology, The First Hospital of China Medical University)
  • Published : 2012.08.01

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether the introducer curving technique is useful in decreasing the degree of tilting of transfemoral Tulip filters. Materials and Methods: The study sample group consisted of 108 patients with deep vein thrombosis who were enrolled and planned to undergo thrombolysis, and who accepted transfemoral Tulip filter insertion procedure. The patients were randomly divided into Group C and Group T. The introducer curving technique was Adopted in Group T. The post-implantation filter tilting angle (ACF) was measured in an anteroposterior projection. The retrieval hook adhering to the vascular wall was measured via tangential cavogram during retrieval. Results: The overall average ACF was 5.8 ${\pm}$ 4.14 degrees. In Group C, the average ACF was 7.1 ${\pm}$ 4.52 degrees. In Group T, the average ACF was 4.4 ${\pm}$ 3.20 degrees. The groups displayed a statistically significant difference (t = 3.573, p = 0.001) in ACF. Additionally, the difference of ACF between the left and right approaches turned out to be statistically significant (7.1 ${\pm}$ 4.59 vs. 5.1 ${\pm}$ 3.82, t = 2.301, p = 0.023). The proportion of severe tilt (ACF ${\geq}10^{\circ}$) in Group T was significantly lower than that in Group C (9.3% vs. 24.1%, ${\chi}^2$ = 4.267, p = 0.039). Between the groups, the difference in the rate of the retrieval hook adhering to the vascular wall was also statistically significant (2.9% vs. 24.2%, ${\chi}^2$ = 5.030, p = 0.025). Conclusion: The introducer curving technique appears to minimize the incidence and extent of transfemoral Tulip filter tilting.

Keywords

References

  1. Heit JA. Venous thromboembolism epidemiology: implications for prevention and management. Semin Thromb Hemost 2002;28 Suppl 2:3-13
  2. Greenfield LJ, Michna BA. Twelve-year clinical experience with the Greenfield vena caval filter. Surgery 1988;104:706-712
  3. Pais SO, Tobin KD, Austin CB, Queral L. Percutaneous insertion of the Greenfield inferior vena cava filter: experience with ninety-six patients. J Vasc Surg 1988;8:460-464
  4. Becker DM, Philbrick JT, Selby JB. Inferior vena cava filters. Indications, safety, effectiveness. Arch Intern Med 1992;152:1985-1994 https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1992.00400220023005
  5. Liu WC, Do YS, Choo SW, Kim DI, Kim YW, Kim DK, et al. The mid-term efficacy and safety of a permanent nitinol IVC filter (TrapEase). Korean J Radiol 2005;6:110-116 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2005.6.2.110
  6. Kinney TB. Update on inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003;14:425-440 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.0000064860.87207.77
  7. Berczi V, Bottomley JR, Thomas SM, Taneja S, Gaines PA, Cleveland TJ. Long-term retrievability of IVC filters: should we abandon permanent devices? Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2007;30:820-827 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-007-9153-z
  8. PREPIC Study Group. Eight-year follow-up of patients with permanent vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism: the PREPIC (Prevention du Risque d'Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) randomized study. Circulation 2005;112:416-422 https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.512834
  9. Looby S, Given MF, Geoghegan T, McErlean A, Lee MJ. Gunther Tulip retrievable inferior vena caval filters: indications, efficacy, retrieval, and complications. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2007;30:59-65 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-006-0093-9
  10. Wicky S, Doenz F, Meuwly JY, Portier F, Schnyder P, Denys A. Clinical experience with retrievable Günther Tulip vena cava filters. J Endovasc Ther 2003;10:994-1000 https://doi.org/10.1583/1545-1550(2003)010<0994:CEWRGT>2.0.CO;2
  11. Rosenthal D, Wellons ED, Hancock SM, Burkett AB. Retrievability of the Günther Tulip vena cava filter after dwell times longer than 180 days in patients with multiple trauma. J Endovasc Ther 2007;14:406-410 https://doi.org/10.1583/06-2045.1
  12. Hoppe H, Nutting CW, Smouse HR, Vesely TM, Pohl C, Bettmann MA, et al. Gunther Tulip filter retrievability multicenter study including CT follow-up: final report. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006;17:1017-1023 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.90000223689.49091.76
  13. Lopera JE, Araki JU, Kirsch D, Qian Z, Brazzini A, Gonzalez A, et al. A modified technique to minimize filter tilting during deployment of the Günther Tulip filter: in vitro study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005;16:1539-1544 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.0000177969.33404.16
  14. Van Ha TG, Vinokur O, Lorenz J, Regalado S, Zangan S, Piano G, et al. Techniques used for difficult retrievals of the Günther Tulip inferior vena cava filter: experience in 32 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009;20:92-99 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2008.10.007
  15. Joels CS, Sing RF, Heniford BT. Complications of inferior vena cava filters. Am Surg 2003;69:654-659
  16. Kinney TB, Rose SC. Regarding "Limb asymmetry in titanium Greenfield filters: clinically significant?". J Vasc Surg 1998;27:1193-1194
  17. Neuerburg J, Günther RW, Rassmussen E, Vorwerk D, Tonn K, Handt S, et al. New retrievable percutaneous vena cava filter: experimental in vitro and in vivo evaluation. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 1993;16:224-229 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02602965
  18. Terhaar OA, Lyon SM, Given MF, Foster AE, Mc Grath F, Lee MJ. Extended interval for retrieval of Günther Tulip filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2004;15:1257-1262 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.0000134497.50590.E2
  19. Sag AA, Stavas JM, Burke CT, Dixon RG, Marquess JS, Mauro MA. Analysis of tilt of the Gunther Tulip filter. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2008;19:669-676 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2008.01.020
  20. Seo TS, Cha IH, Park CM, Kim KA, Lee CH, Choi JW, et al. Detection and correction of anterior or posterior tilting of the Günther-Tulip filter in the inferior vena cava and correction by repositioning: a phantom study and preliminary clinical experiences. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2007;18:427-436 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2007.01.003

Cited by

  1. Introducer curving technique to reduce tilting of transfemoral Günther Tulip IVC filter: in vitro study vol.53, pp.7, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1258/ar.2012.110722
  2. Medical literature, vena cava filters and evidence of efficacy : A descriptive review vol.111, pp.4, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1160/th13-07-0601
  3. Filter tilting and retrievability of the Celect and Denali inferior vena cava filters using propensity score-matching analysis vol.5, pp.None, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejro.2018.09.001
  4. Over-the-wire deployment techniques of option elite inferior vena cava filter: 3D printing vena cava phantom study vol.7, pp.None, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejro.2020.100227