• C J Hammond, D R Bakshi, R J Currie, J V Patel, D Kinsella, R G McWilliams, A Watkinson, and A A Nicholson.
• Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, UK. chris.hammond@doctors.org.uk
• Clin Radiol. 2009 May 1; 64 (5): 502-10.

AimTo audit the use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter insertions at three UK centres over 12 years to assess whether trends in filter use in the UK mirrored those seen elsewhere.Materials And MethodsRadiology department databases were interrogated for IVC filter insertions and removals between 1994 and 2006. Reports for these interventions, along with prior and subsequent imaging reports, were analysed. Follow-up data were obtained when available.ResultsFive hundred and sixteen filters were placed with a significant year-on-year trend towards increasing use. Fifty-seven percent of filters placed were for absolute indications and 37% for relative indications. The filters were used for prophylaxis in 6% of patients in the absence of proven pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis (DVT). A retrievable filter was used in 74% of cases with retrieval attempted in 40% of these and no evidence of an increasing rate of retrieval over time. A significant complication related to insertion or retrieval was encountered in 0.4 and 1% of procedures, respectively. Mean 24 h and 30 day mortalities were 1 and 8%, respectively. There was an absence of organized follow-up at all three centres.ConclusionIVC filter use in the UK is increasing. The use of retrievable filters has not resulted in increased filter retrieval. Filter insertion and retrieval is associated with a low risk of significant complication, but lack of systematic follow-up limits conclusions regarding safety and efficacy.

34 keywords...

hide…