skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Gunther Tulip Retrievable Inferior Vena Caval Filters: Indications, Efficacy, Retrieval, and Complications

Abstract

Purpose. We evaluated the Gunther Tulip (GT) retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter with regard to indications, filtration efficacy, complications, retrieval window, and use of anticoagulation. Method. A retrospective study was performed of 147 patients (64 men, 83 women; mean age 58.8 years) who underwent retrievable GT filter insertion between 2001 and 2005. The indications for placement included a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis with a contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 68), pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis while on anticoagulation (n = 49), prophylactic filter placement for high-risk surgical patients with a past history of pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis (n = 20), and a high risk of pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis (n = 10). Forty-nine of the 147 patients did not receive anticoagulation (33.7%) while 96 of 147 patients did, 82 of these receiving warfarin (56.5%), 11 receiving low-molecular weight heparins (7.58%), and 3 receiving antiplatelet agents alone (2.06%). Results. Filter placement was successful in 147 patients (100%). Two patients had two filters inserted. Of the 147 patients, filter deployment was on a permanent basis in 102 and with an intention to retrieve in 45 patients. There were 36 (80%) successful retrievalsmore » and 9 (20%) failed retrievals. The mean time to retrieval was 33.6 days. The reasons for failed retrieval included filter struts tightly adherent to the IVC wall (5/9), extreme filter tilt (2/9), and extensive filter thrombus (2/9). Complications included pneumothorax (n = 4), failure of filter expansion (n = 1), and breakthrough pulmonary embolism (n = 1). No IVC thrombotic episodes were recorded. Discussion. The Gunther Tulip retrievable filter can be used as a permanent or a retrievable filter. It is safe and efficacious. GT filters can be safely retrieved at a mean time interval of 33.6 days. The newly developed Celect filter may extend the retrieval interval.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. Beaumont Hospital, Department of Radiology (Ireland), E-mail: mlee@rcsi.ie
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
21091047
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology; Journal Volume: 30; Journal Issue: 1; Other Information: DOI: 10.1007/s00270-006-0093-9; Copyright (c) 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.; www.springer-ny.com; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; BLOOD VESSELS; DIAGNOSIS; FILTERS; FILTRATION; PATIENTS; SURGERY; THROMBOSIS; VASCULAR DISEASES

Citation Formats

Looby, S., Given, M.F., Geoghegan, T., McErlean, A., and Lee, M.J. Gunther Tulip Retrievable Inferior Vena Caval Filters: Indications, Efficacy, Retrieval, and Complications. United States: N. p., 2007. Web. doi:10.1007/S00270-006-0093-9.
Looby, S., Given, M.F., Geoghegan, T., McErlean, A., & Lee, M.J. Gunther Tulip Retrievable Inferior Vena Caval Filters: Indications, Efficacy, Retrieval, and Complications. United States. doi:10.1007/S00270-006-0093-9.
Looby, S., Given, M.F., Geoghegan, T., McErlean, A., and Lee, M.J. Thu . "Gunther Tulip Retrievable Inferior Vena Caval Filters: Indications, Efficacy, Retrieval, and Complications". United States. doi:10.1007/S00270-006-0093-9.
@article{osti_21091047,
title = {Gunther Tulip Retrievable Inferior Vena Caval Filters: Indications, Efficacy, Retrieval, and Complications},
author = {Looby, S. and Given, M.F. and Geoghegan, T. and McErlean, A. and Lee, M.J.},
abstractNote = {Purpose. We evaluated the Gunther Tulip (GT) retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter with regard to indications, filtration efficacy, complications, retrieval window, and use of anticoagulation. Method. A retrospective study was performed of 147 patients (64 men, 83 women; mean age 58.8 years) who underwent retrievable GT filter insertion between 2001 and 2005. The indications for placement included a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis with a contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 68), pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis while on anticoagulation (n = 49), prophylactic filter placement for high-risk surgical patients with a past history of pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis (n = 20), and a high risk of pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis (n = 10). Forty-nine of the 147 patients did not receive anticoagulation (33.7%) while 96 of 147 patients did, 82 of these receiving warfarin (56.5%), 11 receiving low-molecular weight heparins (7.58%), and 3 receiving antiplatelet agents alone (2.06%). Results. Filter placement was successful in 147 patients (100%). Two patients had two filters inserted. Of the 147 patients, filter deployment was on a permanent basis in 102 and with an intention to retrieve in 45 patients. There were 36 (80%) successful retrievals and 9 (20%) failed retrievals. The mean time to retrieval was 33.6 days. The reasons for failed retrieval included filter struts tightly adherent to the IVC wall (5/9), extreme filter tilt (2/9), and extensive filter thrombus (2/9). Complications included pneumothorax (n = 4), failure of filter expansion (n = 1), and breakthrough pulmonary embolism (n = 1). No IVC thrombotic episodes were recorded. Discussion. The Gunther Tulip retrievable filter can be used as a permanent or a retrievable filter. It is safe and efficacious. GT filters can be safely retrieved at a mean time interval of 33.6 days. The newly developed Celect filter may extend the retrieval interval.},
doi = {10.1007/S00270-006-0093-9},
journal = {Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology},
number = 1,
volume = 30,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Feb 15 00:00:00 EST 2007},
month = {Thu Feb 15 00:00:00 EST 2007}
}
  • Symptomatic penetration of the inferior vena cava (IVC) wall reportedly occurs in 0.3% of patients in whom a filter has been implanted, and it causes injury to the adjacent structures (Bogue et al. in Pediatr Radiol 39(10):1110-1113, 1; Brzezinski et al. in Burns 32(5):640-643, 2). We succeeded in the endovascular repair of perforation of the IVC wall occurring during the retrieval of a penetrated Gunther tulip vena cava filter (Cook, Bjaeverskov, Denmark) after long-term implantation.
  • PurposeTo evaluate of the medium-term integrity, efficacy, and complication rate associated with the Gunther Tulip vena cava filter.MethodsA retrospective study was performed of 369 consecutive patients who had infrarenal Gunther Tulip inferior vena cava filters placed over a 5-year period. The mean patient age was 61.8 years, and 59 % were men. Venous thromboembolic disease and a contraindication to or complication of anticoagulation were the indications for filter placement in 86 % of patients; 14 % were placed for prophylaxis in patients with a mean of 2.3 risk factors. Follow-up was obtained by review of medical and radiologic records.ResultsMean clinicalmore » follow-up was 780 days. New or recurrent pulmonary embolus occurred in 12 patients (3.3 %). New or recurrent deep-vein thrombosis occurred in 53 patients (14.4 %). There were no symptomatic fractures, migrations, or caval perforations. Imaging follow-up in 287 patients (77.8 %) at a mean of 731 days revealed a single (0.3 %) asymptomatic fracture, migration greater than 2 cm in 36 patients (12.5 %), and no case of embolization. Of 122 patients with CT scans, asymptomatic perforations were identified in 53 patients (43.4 %) at a mean 757 days.ConclusionThe Gunther Tulip filter was safe and effective at 2-year follow-up. Complication rates were similar to those reported for permanent inferior vena cava filters.« less
  • Purpose: We describe the results of a preliminary prospective study using different recently developed temporary and retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. Methods: Fifty temporary IVC filters (Guenther, Guenther Tulip, Antheor) were inserted in 47 patients when the required period of protection against pulmonary embolism (PE) was estimated to be less than 2 weeks. The indications were documented deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and temporary contraindications for anticoagulation, a high risk for PE, and PE despite DVT prophylaxis. Results: Filters were removed 1-12 days after placement and nine (18%) had captured thrombi. Complications were one PE during and after removal ofmore » a filter, two minor filter migrations, and one IVC thrombosis. Conclusion: Temporary filters are effective in trapping clots and protecting against PE, and the complication rate does not exceed that of permanent filters. They are an alternative when protection from PE is required temporarily, and should be considered in patients with a normal life expectancy.« less
  • Purpose. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Gunther tulip retrievable vena cava filter (GTF) implantation to prevent pulmonary embolism during intravenously administered thrombolytic and anticoagulation therapy and interventional radiological therapy for occlusive or nonocclusive deep venous thrombosis (DVT) of the lower extremity. Methods. We evaluated placement of 55 GTFs in 42 patients with lower extremity DVT who had undergone various treatments including those utilizing techniques of interventional radiology. Results. Worsening of pulmonary embolism in patients with existing pulmonary embolism or in those without pulmonary embolism at the time of GTF insertion was avoided in all patients. All attempts atmore » implantation of the GTF were safely accomplished. Perforation and migration experienced by one patient was the only complication. Mean period of treatment for DVT under protection from pulmonary embolism by the GTF was 12.7 {+-} 8.3 days (mean {+-} SD, range 4-37 days). We attempted retrieval of GTFs in 18 patients in whom the venous thrombus had disappeared after therapy, and retrieval in one of these 18 cases failed. GTFs were left in the vena cava in 24 patients for permanent use when the DVT was refractory to treatment. Conclusion. The ability of the GTF to protect against pulmonary embolism during treatment of DVT was demonstrated. Safety in both placement and retrieval was clarified. Because replacement with a permanent filter was not required, use of the GTF was convenient when further protection from complicated pulmonary embolism was necessary.« less
  • Purpose: To report and analyze the indications, procedural success, and complications of retrievable inferior vena cava filters (rIVCF) placement and to identify parameters that influence retrieval attempt and failure. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2010, a total of 200 patients (80 men, median age 67 years, range 11-95 years) received a rIVCF with the clinical possibility that it could be removed. All patients with rIVCF were prospectively entered into a database and followed until retrieval or a decision not to retrieve the filter was made. A retrospective analysis of this database was performed. Results: Sixty-one percent of patients hadmore » an accepted indication for filter placement; 39% of patients had a relative indication. There was a tendency toward a higher retrieval rate in patients with relative indications (40% vs. 55%, P = 0.076). Filter placement was technically successful in all patients, with no procedure-related mortality. The retrieval rate was 53%. Patient age of >80 years (odds ratio [OR] 0.056, P > 0.0001) and presence of malignancy (OR 0.303, P = 0.003) was associated with a significantly reduced probability for attempted retrieval. Retrieval failure occurred in 7% (6 of 91) of all retrieval attempts. A time interval of > 90 days between implantation and attempted retrieval was associated with retrieval failure (OR 19.8, P = 0.009). Conclusions: Patient age >80 years and a history of malignancy are predictors of a reduced probability for retrieval attempt. The rate of retrieval failure is low and seems to be associated with a time interval of >90 days between filter placement and retrieval.« less