Results of a multicenter study of the retrievable Tulip vena cava filter: Early clinical experience

Journal Article · Wed Jan 15 00:00:00 EST 1997 · Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/S002709900102· OSTI ID:21080248

Neuerburg, Joerg M; Guenther, Rolf W; Vorwerk, Dierk ^[1]; Dondelinger, Robert F ^[2]; Jaeger, Horst ^[3]; Lackner, Klaus J ^[4]; Schild, Hans H ^[5]; Plant, Graham R ^[6]; Joffre, Francis G ^[7]; Schneider, Pierre A ^[8]; Janssen, Johan H. A. ^[9]

---

1. University of Technology Aachen, Department of Diagnostic Radiology (Germany)
2. University Hospital Liege, Department of Radiology (Belgium)
3. Staedt. Kliniken Dortmund, Department of Radiology (Germany)
4. University Hospital Cologne, Department of Diagnostic Radiology (Germany)
5. University Hospital Bonn, Department of Radiology (Germany)
6. Basingstoke District Hospital, Department of Diagnostic Radiology (United Kingdom)
7. Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rangueil, Department of Diagnostic Radiology (France)
8. Hopital Cantonal Universitaire, Department of Radiology (Switzerland)
9. University of Limburg, Department of Cardiology, Academisch Ziekenhuis Maastricht (Netherlands)

Purpose. To evaluate clinically a new, retrievable vena caval filter in a multicenter study. Methods. The Tulip filter is a stainless steel half-basket that is suitable for antegrade or retrograde insertion via an 8.5 Fr introducer sheath. The filter can be retrieved via the jugular approach using an 11 Fr coaxial retrieval system. Forty-eight filters were implanted via the femoral approach and 38 via the jugular approach in 83 patients. Follow-up examinations (plain films, colorcoded duplex sonography) were performed up to 3 years after filter insertion (mean 136 days) in 75 patients. Twenty-seven patients were screened by colorcoded duplex sonography for insertion site thrombosis. Results. An appropriate filter position was achieved in all cases. Insertion problems occurred in 3 cases; these were not due to the filter design but to an imperfect prototype insertion mechanism that has now been modified (n=2) or a manipulation error (n=1). In 2 of these cases the filters were replaced percutaneously; 1 patient required venotomy for filter removal. No further complications due to filter insertion occurred. Two filters were used as temporary devices and were successfully removed after 6 and 11 days, respectively. There was 1 fatal recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE) and 2 non-fatal PE, 5 complete and 3 partial caval occlusions, and 3 caudal migrations of the filter. Insertion site venous thrombosis was not seen in the 27 patients monitored for this complication. Conclusion. Precise placement of the Tulip filter is feasible by either access route and the device appears mechanically stable. Further observations are needed to confirm that safe filter removal is practical up to 10 days after its insertion.

• OSTI ID: 21080248
• Journal Information: Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology, Vol. 20, Issue 1; Other Information: DOI: 10.1007/s002709900102; Copyright (c) 1997 Springer-Verlag New York Inc; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); ISSN 0174-1551
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE
DESIGN
ERRORS
PATIENTS
STAINLESS STEELS
THROMBOSIS
VASCULAR DISEASES