Clinical Radiology
Volume 64, Issue 5 , Pages 502-510, May 2009

Audit of the use of IVC filters in the UK: experience from three centres over 12 years

  • C.J. Hammond

      Affiliations

    • Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationGuarantor and correspondent: C. J. Hammond, Leeds General Infirmary, Great George Street, LEEDS LS1 3EX, UK. Tel.: +44 113 3923504; fax: +44 113 3923217.
  • ,
  • D.R. Bakshi

      Affiliations

    • Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK
  • ,
  • R.J. Currie

      Affiliations

    • Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, UK
  • ,
  • J.V. Patel

      Affiliations

    • Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, UK
  • ,
  • D. Kinsella

      Affiliations

    • Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, UK
  • ,
  • R.G. McWilliams

      Affiliations

    • Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK
  • ,
  • A. Watkinson

      Affiliations

    • Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, UK
  • ,
  • A.A. Nicholson

      Affiliations

    • Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, UK

Received 7 October 2008; received in revised form 19 January 2009; accepted 22 January 2009.

Aim

To 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 methods

Radiology 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.

Results

Five 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 24h and 30 day mortalities were 1 and 8%, respectively. There was an absence of organized follow-up at all three centres.

Conclusion

IVC 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.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0009-9260(09)00063-4

doi:10.1016/j.crad.2009.01.009

Clinical Radiology
Volume 64, Issue 5 , Pages 502-510, May 2009