Injury
Volume 38, Issue 1 , Pages 7-18, January 2007

Safety and efficacy of vena cava filters in trauma patients

  • Peter V. Giannoudis

      Affiliations

    • Academic Department of Trauma & Orthopaedics, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, United Kingdom
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: Department of Trauma & Orthopaedics, St James's University Hospital, Beckett Street, Leeds LS9 7TF, United Kingdom. Tel.: +44 113 2433144; fax: +44 113 2065156.
    • ,
  • Ippokratis Pountos

      Affiliations

    • Academic Department of Trauma & Orthopaedics, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, United Kingdom
    • ,
  • Hans Christoph Pape

      Affiliations

    • Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, United States
    • ,
  • Jai V. Patel

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, St James's University Hospital, United Kingdom

Accepted 17 August 2006.

Article Outline

Summary 

Pulmonary embolism (PE), due to its sudden onset, notoriously difficult diagnosis, unpredictable nature and often fatal outcome, remains one of the most feared complications in surgical practice. Trauma patients with multisystem injuries, extremity or pelvic fractures and head or spinal cord injuries often pose a significant dilemma for the surgeon because of the inability to use conventional measures such as anticoagulation therapy and compression devices. On the other hand, the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is high among trauma patients and the attendant risk of PE is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Inferior vena cava (IVC) interruption by placement of diverse filtering devices has evolved over the past three decades. With the use of these devices, the risk of PE has been reduced dramatically. However, variable rates of complications are reported from their use. In this study, we review all the available data on IVC filter placement in trauma patients and we discuss the potential complications of IVC filters in order to understand better the risk/benefit ratio of their use.

Keywords: Pulmonary embolism, Inferior vena cava, Trauma

 

Back to Article Outline

Introduction 

The relationship between trauma, deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and the potential development of pulmonary embolism (PE) is well established. Virchow, in mid-19th century, first proposed that pulmonary thrombi are primary emboli originating from the veins of lower extremities as a result of venous stasis, hypercoagulability and endothelial injury.117, 118 Subsequently, Sevitt and Gallagher in 1961 reported that among trauma patients the incidence of DVT and PE was 65 and 20.3%, respectively, and judged that the cause of death was PE in a large number of non-survivors.101 These data indicated that new ways of prevention of PE, especially in high risk trauma patients, should be established.

Numerous surgical techniques have been described to date for the prevention of PE, including femoral vein ligation,38, 40 inferior vena cava (IVC) ligation,1, 74 IVC occlusion with transvenous Hunter-Sessions balloon occluder,109 and partial interruption of the IVC using plastic clips,24, 55 plication56, 104 or mechanical staplers.82 Despite these measures, little improvement in the outcome of patients with PE was observed.1

The poor outcomes from these ‘traditional’ surgical methods stimulated the development of new approaches to filter the vena cava. In the early 1980s, Mobin-Uddin introduced the first percutaneously inserted caval filter, the Mobin-Uddin umbrella filter.17 Although this filter had a high complication rate,102 it reduced the mortality rate from 24 to 10%.23

Since then, a large number of IVC filters have been developed with lower rates of complication and lower mortality rates.124 Recently, their use has increased markedly, with 30,000–40,000 filters deployed annually in the USA alone.42, 108

Back to Article Outline

Available filters 

Caval filters can be divided into permanent and non-permanent filters. Once inserted, a permanent filter cannot be removed percutaneously. Non-permanent filters are either temporary, being attached to a wire or catheter and, therefore, must be removed, or retrievable, with the option of removal within a specified time frame if the patient's clinical status permits. The latter can be left in situ as a permanent filter.48, 64

Caval filters are generally placed via the femoral or internal jugular approach. Insertion via the basilic vein at the antecubital fossa is also possible with some designs. Filters are ideally placed in the infrarenal IVC to prevent renal vein thrombosis in the event of IVC occlusion. However, in the presence of IVC thrombus, a suprarenal position may be required.43, 106

Back to Article Outline

Permanent filters 

The Bird's Nest filter (BNF) was introduced in 1982 (Fig. 1).22, 87, 88 It has a unique structure comprising four stainless steel wires folded and attached to two V-shaped struts which fix to the vena cava wall via hooks. Its design provides an advantage because it can be placed in patients with large caval diameters (up to 40mm).84 The BNF can be placed from either the jugular or the femoral approach. Disadvantages of the BNF include its deployed length which limits its use in patients with a short infrarenal IVC and its MRI incompatibility as it generates large MR artifacts.120

  • View full-size image.
  • Figure 1. 

    (A) Gunther Tulip filter, (B) TrapEase filter, (C) ALN filter, (D) the Recovery nitinol filter, (E) VenaTech filter, (F) Tempofilter and (G) Bird's Nest filter.

The stainless steel Greenfield filter (GF) was originally introduced in 1972.15 The original Greenfield filter was placed through a venotomy and a 29 F (outer diameter) catheter. Since then smaller introduction devices were produced decreasing the incidence of femoral vein thrombosis. The stainless steel over the wire Greenfield filter was introduced in 1994. It has conical shape and better hook design compared with the previous Greenfield filters decreasing the incidence of migration. It can be used in vena cavae sized up to 28mm in diameter but creates a significant artifact on the MR image.

The titanium Greenfield filter (TGF) was introduced in 1988.30, 33 It has a conical design and consists of six struts with terminal hooks for fixation to the vessel wall. It can be compressed into a smaller diameter system allowing percutaneous delivery through a 14.3Fr sheath. High rates of migration were reported and the filter's hooks were modified.31 The titanium Greenfield filter is MRI compatible producing only a minor MR artifact.114

The Simon Nitinol filter (SNF)29, 59, 103 is made of nitinol, a non-ferromagnetic nickel–titanium alloy which has thermal memory (at low temperatures, the filter is presented as a set of straight wires which unfold to form a predetermined umbrella shape at body temperature). It is anchored to the wall of vena cava through six hooked struts. This filter can be inserted through the femoral, jugular or antecubital vein. It is designed for insertion into IVCs of diameter less than 28mm.

The LGM VenaTech filter18, 63, 85, 113 was introduced in 1989 and modified in 1991. It has a conical shape and is attached to the walls of the vena cava through six struts with side rails. It is MR-compatible and can be placed in vena cavae up to 28mm in size.

The VenaTech low profile filter is a modified version of LGM VenaTech filter introduced in 2001 (Fig. 1).51 It is composed of eight Phynol wires fused in pairs making side rails which secure the filter through hooks to the caval walls. The filter was designed for insertion into IVCs of diameter less than 28mm but it may be used for larger vena cavae.

The TrapEase filter is made from nitinol and consists of two conical filter baskets connected together to create a six-pointed star configuration (Fig. 1).97, 100 It is a permanent filter and can be deployed through a low profile 6Fr introducer sheath via the femoral, internal jugular or antecubital vein.99 This filter can be placed in vena cavae with diameter less than 30mm.

Back to Article Outline

Temporary 

Temporary IVC filters61 were developed as a short-term prophylaxis against PE which can be easily removed when no longer required. These include the Gunther temporary filter,119 Filcard,66 Protect Infusion Catheter,41 Amplatz,20 Prolyser,57 Tempofilter (Fig. 1),10 DIP,69, 78 Lysofilter,78 Cook,128 Angiocor128 and Antheor filter.57 Since they are anchored to the skin via a catheter or wire, they have the risk of becoming infected. Another disadvantage is that the filter may prove difficult to remove if there is thrombus trapped within it.

Back to Article Outline

Retrievable 

Retrievable filters are essentially permanent filters which have design features which allow them to be removed after a specified period. The retrieval mechanism differs with the different filter designs, but they all require a jugular approach for removal.

The Gunther Tulip filter was introduced in Europe in 1992 (Fig. 1).61, 62, 68, 71 It is composed of four struts interconnected and stabilised by wire loops. It can be deployed via a femoral or jugular route in IVCs up to 30mm and has a hook at its apex which allows it to be retrieved. It was originally approved for retrieval up to 14 days post-insertion, but has been retrieved beyond this period,67 and has recently been approved for indefinite retrieval.

The Optease filter was introduced in 2002.48 Its shape resembles a TrapEase filter with slight modifications including a caudal hook which allows the filter to be retrieved.

The Recovery nitinol filter was introduced in 2003 as a permanent retrievable filter (Fig. 1).4 It has a hub with 12 nitinol wires extending from it providing two layers of filtration. It measures 4cm in height and can accommodate in a vena cava up to 28mm.

The ALN filter was originally introduced in 1990 as a permanent filter later becoming a retrievable filter following development of an extraction kit in 1999 (Fig. 1). It is manufactured from stainless steel43, 79 and has six short legs that adhere to the caval wall with three long legs that assure the centralization along the main caval axis. It can be introduced through a femoral, jugular or antecubital approach.

Today, retrievable filters are the most commonly used as they pose several advantages over the other types. Orthopaedic and trauma patients could benefit from their aptitude to be used in the high-risk period for developing PE while avoiding the long-term sequelae.96, 99 In cases where there is significant clot found within the filter at the time of intended retrieval, it can be left in situ, either permanently, or could be retrieved at a later date once the clot has lysed. These properties together with their low rate of complications make them the best candidates for short-term prophylaxis against PE.2, 39

Back to Article Outline

IVC filters: indications, criteria and contraindications 

There are a number of ‘accepted’ indications for the use of IVC filters. These are patients with PE in whom anticoagulants are contraindicated, with recurrent PE despite adequate anticoagulation and those where there has been a complication from anticoagulant therapy. With the development of lower profile percutaneously inserted and retrievable devices, the use of filters has been extended to include more contentious ‘prophylactic’ indications, including patients with free-floating iliofemoral or caval thrombus and in patients at high risk of venous thromboembolic disease (Table 1).51, 107, 112

Table 1. Indications and contraindications of IVC filters
A. Accepted indications
1. PE with contraindication to anticoagulation, failure of/or complication from anticoagulant therapy51

Prophylactic indications
2. Free-floating iliofemoral or caval thrombus51, 107
3. Deep vein thrombosis107
4. Cancer6, 81
5. Prophylactic placement in high risk patients:
• Spinal cord injury39, 73, 95
• Severe head injury39, 73, 95
• Pelvic fractures39, 73, 95
• Multiple long bone fractures39, 73, 95
• Iliofemoral venous injuries112
• Hip or knee replacement patients with prior deep venous thrombosis16, 66

B. Contraindications
1. Lack of route to IVC7, 107
2. Chronically thrombosed IVC7, 107
3. Adolescence patients7, 107

In trauma patients, the criteria for placing an IVC filter are diverse and vary according to individual physician preference and local practice. Specific risk factors which are associated with increase incidence of DVT and subsequently PE are used as criteria for the insertion of an IVC filter. These include severe head injury, multiple long bone fractures, spinal cord injury, abdominal or pelvic penetrating venous injury, paraplegia or quadriplegia and severe pelvic fractures. Patients over 45 years of age with an ISS greater than 16 and Glasgow Coma Scale less than 8 complete the criteria used for IVC filter application.49, 89, 91 The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma has issued guidelines for prophylactic vena caval filter insertion.76, 126 According to these guidelines, patients who are unable to receive anticoagulants and have poor cardiopulmonary function or are over 45 years of age and suffering from spinal cord injury with paraplegia/quadriplegia, have complex pelvic fractures together with long-bone fractures, have multiple long-bone fractures or have head trauma with GCS<8 are candidates to receive an IVC filter.76, 124

There are a number of contraindications to the placement of IVC filters (Table 1). These include patients in whom there is a lack of route to the IVC and those where the IVC is chronically thrombosed.107 Filters should also be used with caution in paediatric and adolescent patients due to the lack of long-term follow-up data on the currently available implants.7, 107

Back to Article Outline

Complications 

Complications can occur during any stage of IVC filter placement, varying from complications occurring at the time of filter insertion to late complications which can develop after several months or years (Table 2).

Table 2. Potential complications of IVC filters
EarlyLate
• Post-procedural bleeding83• PE46, 53, 86, 89, 91, 92, 93
• Access site thrombosis89• IVC thrombosis46, 86, 91
• Delivery system complications (sheath kinking, air embolism)57• Venous stasis and chronic venous insufficiency34, 86
• Malposition92• Fracture of filter111
• Tilting89, 92• Migration49, 54
• Failure of opening/incomplete opening54• Arteriovenous fistula28, 53
• Vessel penetration12, 58
• Duodenal perforation3, 21
• Vertebral body penetration50
• Renal penetration-hydronephrosis44, 105

Access site thrombosis was a common complication of filter placement with reported incidence as high as 35%.65, 102 However, more recent studies with contemporary, lower profile filter delivery systems demonstrate a much lower incidence of 1–3%.77, 95

Another important early complication is malpositioning and tilting of the filter. Filter tilt and malposition reduce its ‘clot trapping’ effectiveness and result in higher rates of recurrent PE than with optimally placed filters.47, 89, 92

Additionally, rare early complications include arterial punctures and artriovenous filstula,12, 28, 58 failure of the filter to open, air embolism and duodenal perforation.21

Recurrent PE is one of the most important and potentially fatal complications of IVC filter placement. Most filters will allow the passage of small clots.47 Recurrent PE is variable depending on the filter type and centering of the filter within the cava. Greenfield and Michna reported the highest rates of recurrent PE (4–5%).32, 37 Aside from the mortality following PE, there is an incidence of pulmonary hypertension from chronic subclinical PE's.70, 98

Vena cava occlusion secondary to trapped thrombus in the filter is both a functional success of the filter but also an important pathologic condition. The incidence of IVC occlusion is variable. Becker et al. reported a rate of 15.3% of IVC occlusion without anticoagulation therapy but this rate decreased at 7.7% with the administration of anticoagulants.8 In the event of symptomatic IVC thrombosis, mechanical thrombectomy has been used with varying success to recannalise the IVC.80

Migration of the IVC filter is another serious complication. The reported incidence of migration is 7–19% for the VenaTech filter and 8–15% for the Greenfield filter.35, 83, 125 Filter migration to the heart26, 45 and lungs26, 110 has been reported, resulting in major complication, including sudden death.11

Filter fractures are reported when forceful maneuvers are applied in order to displace and retrieve an IVC filter.111 Embolisation into the left pulmonary artery, right hepatic artery and right hepatic vein are reported from broken struts.111

Back to Article Outline

Efficacy 

DVT may be clinically silent following trauma and its diagnosis can, therefore, be challenging.52 Pulmonary embolism is the third most common cause of death in trauma patients who survive after the first day.25 On the other hand, 6% of trauma patients develop PE within the first day of admission.75 Since anticoagulant prophylaxis against DVT and PE is often not clinically appropriate, placement of an IVC filter in this select patient population is suggested to prevent PE. We should note here that an IVC filter does not by any means inhibit the thrombotic process and may possibly aggravate it.42

The literature on the use of prophylactic IVC filters in trauma patients is conflicting. Several authors have shown a decrease in the incidence of PE after prophylactic use of IVC filters.14, 49, 86, 90, 122 Carlin et al. demonstrated a reduction in the incidence of PE from 0.29 to 0.15% after increased use of prophylactic IVC filters in trauma patients at high risk and with contraindication to anticoagulation.14 In contrast, McMurtry et al., in a study of 299 patients having an IVC filter out of 28,227 trauma patients, concluded that the use of prophylactic filters failed to decrease the overall incidence of PE.60

Table 3 reviews the most important data presenting the application of IVC filters in the trauma population. It contains the study of 3404 patients receiving a filter, taking into account the complications encountered and the type of the filter. According to these data, 1.4% of injured patients received an IVC filter, with the Greenfield filter used in more than 70% of cases. However, the more recent studies show increased use of temporary and retrievable filters. There were 433 complications in the 3404 patients indicating a 13% complication rate in this population. The most important of these, recurrent PE, occurred in less than 1% (32 PEs), with 40% being fatal. IVC thrombosis and occlusion occurred at an average rate of 2%. Insertion site thrombosis complicated a filter insertion in 2%. Filter migration occurred in 1%, as did misplacement and filter tilt.

Table 3. Data presenting the effectiveness of IVC filters
Author/dateIVC filters/total trauma patientsPE among patients with IVC filterComplicationsFilters used
Jarrell/19834621/2091 (fatal)• Two vena caval thrombosis• GF (Kim–Ray)
• Three wound hematomas

Carabasi/198713188/n/a2 (1 fatal)• Three misplaced filters• GF
• 14 inability to pass the introducer through the jugular vein (10 placed through femoral vein, no filter placed in 4 patients)
• One small retroperitoneal hematoma
• Two migrated filters
• Two struts extended outside of caval walls
• Five thrombosis of IVC
• Four lower extremity swelling

Rohrer/19899321/n/a1• Two post-phlebitis syndrome• GF

Webb/199212124/n/a0• Four had leg edema• GF
• One phlegmasia

Ferris/199322320/n/a11 (8 fatal)• 26 vena cava occlusion• 78 BN
• 12 penetrations of IVC wall• 30 Amplatz
• 13 migrations• 21 SN
• Five filter strut or leg fracture• 113 VT
• 26 insertion site thrombosis• 10 TGF
• 72 TGF (modified hook)

Rogers/19939134/7920• One vena caval thrombosis• 32 TGF
• Two BN

Leach/199454201/10,948 (205 filters)0• One migrated to pulmonary artery• GF
• One misplaced filter
• Three filters failed to flare
• One filter tilted
• One insertion site thrombosis

Rosental/19949449/1610• One hematoma• GF
Wilson/199412215/25250• No complications• TGF
Winchell/199412361/97210• No complications• n/a

Khansarinia/199549108/65560• One insertion site thrombosis (internal jugular)• GF
• One migration of IVC filter to Rt ventricle
• Four partially opened filters

Rogers/19959063/31511 (fatal)• Two insertion site thrombosis• n/a
• Two vena caval occlusion

Zolfaghari/199512745/30050• No complications• VT

Patton/199677110/15,5260• Three misplaced (renal, iliac, lumbar vein)• TGF
• Three insertion site thrombosis
• One migration
• One IVC occlusion

Rodriquez/19968640/n/a1• Four vena caval thrombosis• TGF
Gosin/19972799/16300• No complications• n/a

Rogers/19978935/940 (36 filters)1• Two insertion site thrombosis• 32 TGF
• One tilted (patient developed PE)• Three BN

Nunn/19977249/31720• One tilted filter• TGF
• One insertion site thrombosis
• One vena cava occlusion
• One migrated filter

Rogers/199892132/52803 (1 fatal)• Four insertion site thrombosis• 93 TGF
• Six tilted filters• 21 GF
• 41 strut malpositions• 10 VT
• One vena caval thrombosis• Eight BN

Van Natta/199811671/16,4170• One insertion site thrombosis• 65 GF
• One tilted filter• Six BN
• One migration
• One vena cava occlusion

Lagman/199953187/73331• One misplacement in Rt common iliac vein (non-fatal PE developed in this patient)• GF
• One femoral arterio-venous fistula
• One groin hematoma

McMurtry/199960299/28,2276• Four IVC occlusionData available for 237:
• Three misplacements• 142 GF
• Two insertion site hemorrhage• 80 VT
• Two hemorrhage from insertion site (transfusion needed)• 11 SN
• Four BN

Tola/199911521/8030• No complications• n/a
Benjamin/1999923/n/a • One misplaced in suprarenal IVC• TGF

Greenfield/200034385/n/a5• One misplaced• 180 GF
• One incomplete opening• 205 TGF
• 75 lower extremity edema
• Eight insertion site thrombosis
• Two caval penetrations
• Six migrated
• Five tilted
• Nine IVC occlusion
• One incomplete opening
• 15 asymmetry encountered

Wojcik/2000126191/71450• One migratedAvailable only for 105 patients:
• One vena caval occlusion• 72 GF
• 11 patients with leg swelling• 28 BN
• Five SN

Carlin/200214200/19,2761 (fatal)• Five insertion site thrombosis• GF
• One retroperitoneal hematoma
• Two pericardial infusion due to a guide wire puncture

Morris/20036755/12571• No further complications• 29 GT (the rest was GF, VT, SN, TE)
Offner/20037344/n/a0• Three could not be retrieved• GT
Duperier/200319133/15481 (fatal)• No further complications• GF
Hoff/20043935/10450• No complications• GT

Rosental/20049594/n/a0• Three misplaced in right iliac vein• Optease
• Two groin hematomas
• One insertion site thrombosis
• One 5mm defect in the IVC wall

Allen/2005251/24260• One unsuccessful retrieval• GT

Abbreviations: n/a, not available; GF, Greenfield filter; TGF, titanium Greenfield filter; GT, Gunther Tulip filter; BN, Bird's Nest filter; SN, Simon nitinol filter; VT, VenaTech filter; TE, TrapEase filter.

An important factor contributing to the efficacy of IVC filters is their proper placement and alignment. Malposition and misplacement of the filter will potentially make it ineffective. Tilting, on the other hand, is associated with increased incidence of recurrent PE.89, 92 Rogers et al., in 1998, had a 5.5% rate of filter tilting and 38% of strut malposition in 132 filter placements. These complications seem to have contributed to the three recurrent PE's that they reported.92 Katsamouris et al. demonstrated that eccentric filter placement resulted in the passage of large clots through it.47 It should be noted that a reduction in clot trapping efficacy is also observed as the diameter of the IVC and the downstream IVC pressure increases.36

Ultrasound guided IVC filter placement is used today as a quick bedside method for prophylaxis for PE leading to a more precise and focused placement of the filter addressing the need for proper placement and alignment.9, 72 Benjamin et al. presented a technique for placing IVC filters under duplex ultrasound.9 Despite the fact that 1 of the 23 filters was inadvertently placed in the suprarenal IVC, this technique seems to be relatively accurate and quick method of filter placement by the bed side, obviating the need for transporting the seriously injured patient out of the intensive care setting to the angiography suite. It also significantly reduces the cost of filter placement.9 Ashley et al. studied the accuracy of IVC filter placement with intravascular ultrasound and venography.5 He concluded that venography overestimates the diameter and in many cases fails to determine the ideal site for IVC filter deployment.

It is anticipated that new data will emerge in the future driving us to safer conclusions and liberalisation of their use in the trauma setting.

Back to Article Outline

Conclusion 

Despite the fact that the incidence of PE is low, it could be a significant cause of death among trauma patients. IVC filters are relatively safe and appear to be effective in reducing the incidence of PE. But is there an ideal filter? Some essential properties characterising an ideal filter include the clot-trapping efficacy, secure fixation to the caval wall, percutaneous insertion through a small diameter sheath, MR compatibility, low rate of complications and low cost. Clearly, currently available devices do not fulfill all these criteria. Therefore, familiarity with a range of filters is essential allowing choice of filter to be tailored to the needs of the individual patient.

Back to Article Outline

Acknowledgements 

This work is attributed to Departments of Trauma & Orthopaedics, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, and University of Pittsburgh, Department of Radiology, The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Adams JT, Feingold BE, DeWeese JA. Comparative evaluation of ligation and partial interruption of the inferior vena cava. Arch Surg. 1971;103(2):272–276
  2. Allen TL, Carter JL, Morris BJ, et al. Retrievable vena cava filters in trauma patients for high-risk prophylaxis and prevention of pulmonary embolism. Am J Surg. 2005;189(6):656–661
  3. Appleberg M, Crozier JA. Duodenal penetration by a Greenfield caval filter. Aust N Z J Surg. 1991;61(12):957–960
  4. Asch MR. Initial experience in humans with a new retrievable inferior vena cava filter. Radiology. 2002;225(3):835–844
  5. Ashley DW, Gamblin TC, Burch ST, Solis MM. Accurate deployment of vena cava filters: comparison of intravascular ultrasound and contrast venography. J Trauma. 2001;50(6):975–981
  6. Athanasoulis CA, Kaufman JA, Halpern EF, et al. Inferior vena caval filters: review of a 26-year single-center clinical experience. Radiology. 2000;216(1):54–66
  7. Baerlocher M, Noble J. IVC filters: an introduction to a simple concept turned clinical. Univ Toronto Med J. 2004;81(3):239–242
  8. Becker DM, Philbrick JT, Selby JB. Inferior vena cava filters. Indications, safety, effectiveness. Arch Intern Med. 1992;152(10):1985–1994
  9. Benjamin ME, Sandager GP, Cohn EJ, et al. Duplex ultrasound insertion of inferior vena cava filters in multitrauma patients. Am J Surg. 1999;178(2):92–97
  10. Bovyn G, Gory P, Reynaud P, Ricco JB. The Tempofilter: a multicenter study of a new temporary caval filter implantable for up to six weeks. Ann Vasc Surg. 1997;11(5):520–528
  11. Bustamante M, Abascal F, Garcia-Valtuille R, et al. Sudden death in a patient caused by migration of an Antheor vena cava filter to the heart. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1998;9(3):521–522
  12. Campbell JJ, Calcagno D. Aortic pseudoaneurysm from aortic penetration with a bird's nest vena cava filter. J Vasc Surg. 2003;38(3):596–599
  13. Carabasi RAJ, Moritz MJ, Jarrell BE. Complications encountered with the use of the Greenfield filter. Am J Surg. 1987;154(2):163–168
  14. Carlin AM, Tyburski JG, Wilson RF, Steffes C. Prophylactic and therapeutic inferior vena cava filters to prevent pulmonary emboli in trauma patients. Arch Surg. 2002;137(5):521–527
  15. Cho KJ, Greenfield LJ, Proctor MC, et al. Evaluation of a new percutaneous stainless steel Greenfield filter. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1997;8(2):181–187
  16. Clagett GP, Anderson FA, Geerts W, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism. Chest. 1998;114(5 Suppl.):531S–560S
  17. Crane C. The Mobin-Uddin inferior vena caval filter. Arch Surg. 1971;103(6):661
  18. Crochet DP, Stora O, Ferry D, et al. Vena Tech-LGM filter: long-term results of a prospective study. Radiology. 1993;188(3):857–860
  19. Duperier T, Mosenthal A, Swan KG, Kaul S. Acute complications associated with Greenfield filter insertion in high-risk trauma patients. J Trauma. 2003;54(3):545–549
  20. Epstein DH, Darcy MD, Hunter DW, et al. Experience with the Amplatz retrievable vena cava filter. Radiology. 1989;172(1):105–110
  21. Feezor RJ, Huber TS, Welborn MB, Schell SR. Duodenal perforation with an inferior vena cava filter: an unusual cause of abdominal pain. J Vasc Surg. 2002;35(5):1010–1012
  22. Ferris EJ, McCowan TC, Carver DK, McFarland DR. Percutaneous inferior vena caval filters: follow-up of seven designs in 320 patients. Radiology. 1993;188:851–856
  23. Fullen WD, McDonough JJ, Altemeier WA. Clinical experience with vena caval filters. Arch Surg. 1973;106(4):582–587
  24. Fuller CH. Willbanks OLIncidental prophylactic inferior vena cava clipping. Arch Surg. 1971;102(5):440–441
  25. Geerts WH, Code KI, Jay RM, et al. A prospective study of venous thromboembolism after major trauma. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1601–1606
  26. Gelbfish GA, Ascer E. Intracardiac and intrapulmonary Greenfield filters: a long-term follow-up. J Vasc Surg. 1991;14(5):614–617
  27. Gosin JS, Graham AM, Ciocca RG, Hammond JS. Efficacy of prophylactic vena cava filters in high-risk trauma patients. Ann Vasc Surg. 1997;11(1):100–105
  28. Grassi CJ, Bettmann MA, Rogoff P, et al. Femoral arteriovenous fistula after placement of a Kimray–Greenfield filter. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988;151(4):681–682
  29. Grassi CJ, Matsumoto AH, Teitelbaum GP. Vena caval occlusion after Simon nitinol filter placement: identification with MR imaging in patients with malignancy. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1992;3(3):535–539
  30. Greenfield LJ, Cho KJ, Pais SO, Van Aman M. Preliminary clinical experience with the titanium Greenfield vena caval filter. Arch Surg. 1989;124(6):657–659
  31. Greenfield LJ, Cho KJ, Proctor M, et al. Results of a multicenter study of the modified hook-titanium Greenfield filter. J Vasc Surg. 1991;14(3):253–257
  32. Greenfield LJ, Michna BA. Twelve-year clinical experience with the Greenfield vena cava filter. Surgery. 1988;104:706–712
  33. Greenfield LJ, Proctor MC, Cho KJ, Wakefield TW. Limb asymmetry in titanium Greenfield filters: clinically significant?. J Vasc Surg. 1997;26(5):770–775
  34. Greenfield LJ, Proctor MC, Michaels AJ, Taheri PA. Prophylactic vena caval filters in trauma: the rest of the story. J Vasc Surg. 2000;32(3):490–497
  35. Greenfield LJ, Proctor MC. Twenty-year clinical experience with the Greenfield filter. Cardiovasc Surg. 1995;3(2):199–205
  36. Greenfield LJ, Proctor MC. Experimental embolic capture by asymmetric Greenfield filters. J Vasc Surg. 1992;16(3):436–444
  37. Greenfield LJ. Current indications for and results of Greenfield filter placement. J Vasc Surg. 1984;1(3):502–504
  38. Hann CL, Streiff MB. The role of vena caval filters in the management of venous thromboembolism. Blood Rev. 2005;19(4):179–202
  39. Hoff WS, Hoey BA, Wainwright GA, et al. Early experience with retrievable inferior vena cava filters in high-risk trauma patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;199(6):869–874
  40. Homans J. Thrombosis of deep veins of lower leg, causing pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 1934;211:933–937
  41. Hughes GC, Smith TP, Eachempati SR, et al. The use of a temporary vena caval interruption device in high-risk trauma patients unable to receive standard venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. J Trauma. 1999;46(2):246–249
  42. Hull RD. Changes in the technology of inferior vena cava filters promise improved benefits to the patient with less harm, but a paucity of evidence exists. J Thromb Haemost. 2005;3(7):1368–1369
  43. Imberti D, Bianchi M, Farina A, et al. Clinical experience with retrievable vena cava filters: results of a prospective observational multicenter study. J Thromb Haemost. 2005;3(7):1370–1375
  44. Jackson Slappy AL, Kennedy RJ, Hakaim AG, et al. Delayed transcaval renal penetration of a Greenfield filter presenting as symptomatic hydronephrosis. J Urol. 2002;167(4):1778–1779
  45. James KV, Sobolewski AP, Lohr JM, Welling RE. Tricuspid insufficiency after intracardiac migration of a Greenfield filter: case report and review of the literature. J Vasc Surg. 1996;24(3):494–498
  46. Jarrell BE, Posuniak E, Roberts J, et al. A new method of management using the Kim–Ray Greenfield filter for deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in spinal cord injury. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1983;157(4):316–320
  47. Katsamouris AA, Waltman AC, Delichatsios MA, Athanasoulis CA. Inferior vena cava filters: in vitro comparison of clot trapping and flow dynamics. Radiology. 1988;166(2):361–366
  48. Kaufman JA. Retrievable vena cava filters. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004;7(2):96–104
  49. Khansarinia S, Dennis JW, Veldenz HC, et al. Prophylactic Greenfield filter placement in selected high-risk trauma patients. J Vasc Surg. 1995;22(3):231–236
  50. Kim D, Porter DH, Siegel JB, Simon M. Perforation of the inferior vena cava with aortic and vertebral penetration by a suprarenal Greenfield filter. Radiology. 1989;172(3):721–723
  51. Kinney TB. Update on inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14(4):425–440
  52. Knudson MM, Ikossi DG. Venous thromboembolism after trauma. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2004;10(6):539–548
  53. Langan EM, Miller RS, Casey WJ, et al. Prophylactic inferior vena cava filters in trauma patients at high risk: follow-up examination and risk/benefit assessment. J Vasc Surg. 1999;30(3):484–488
  54. Leach TA, Pastena JA, Swan KG, et al. Surgical prophylaxis for pulmonary embolism. Am Surg. 1994;60(4):292–295
  55. Leather RP, Clark WR, Powers SR, et al. Five-year experience with the Moretz vena caval clip in 62 patients. Arch Surg. 1968;97(2):357–364
  56. Lindenauer SM. Prophylactic staple plication of the inferior vena cava. Arch Surg. 1973;107(5):669–675
  57. Lorch H, Welger D, Wagner V, et al. Current practice of temporary vena cava filter insertion: a multicenter registry. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000;11(1):83–88
  58. Mastrobattista JM, Caputo TA, Bush HS. Perforation of the inferior vena cava by a recently inserted Greenfield filter. Gynecol Oncol. 1995;56(3):399–401
  59. McCowan TC, Ferris EJ, Carver DK, Molpus WM. Complications of the nitinol vena caval filter. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1992;3(2):401–408
  60. McMurtry AL, Owings JT, Anderson JT, et al. Increased use of prophylactic vena cava filters in trauma patients failed to decrease overall incidence of pulmonary embolism. J Am Coll Surg. 1999;189(3):314–320
  61. Millward SF, Bhargava A, Aquino J, et al. Gunther Tulip filter: preliminary clinical experience with retrieval. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000;11(1):75–82
  62. Millward SF, Oliva VL, Bell SD, et al. Gunther Tulip retrievable vena cava filter: results from the Registry of the Canadian Interventional Radiology Association. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001;12(9):1053–1058
  63. Millward SF, Peterson RA, Moher D, et al. LGM (Vena Tech) vena caval filter: experience at a single institution. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1994;5(March–April (2)):351–356
  64. Millward SF. Temporary and retrievable inferior vena cava filters: current status. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1998;9(3):381–387
  65. Molgaard CP, Yucel EK, Geller SC, et al. Access-site thrombosis after placement of inferior vena cava filters with 12-14-F delivery sheaths. Radiology. 1992;185(1):257–261
  66. Monfetta L, Palermo A, De Caro G, Pipino F. Temporary vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism during total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Traumatol. 2002;2:99–103
  67. Morris CS, Rogers FB, Najarian KE, et al. Current trends in vena caval filtration with the introduction of a retrievable filter at a level I trauma center. J Trauma. 2004;57(1):32–36
  68. Nadkarni S, Macdonald S, Cleveland TJ, Gaines PA. Placement of a retrievable Gunther Tulip filter in the superior vena cava for upper extremity deep venous thrombosis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2002;25(6):524–526
  69. Nagele M, Konig C, Gorich J, et al. DIL vena cava filter. Initial experiences in 15 patients. RoFo. 1995;162(2):128–133
  70. Nakamura M, Okada O, Sakuma M, et al. Incidence and clinical characteristics of chronic pulmonary thromboembolism in Japan compared with acute pulmonary thromboembolism: results of a multicenter registry of the Japanese Society of Pulmonary Embolism Research. Circ J. 2002;66(3):257–260
  71. Neuerburg JM, Gunther RW, Vorwerk D, et al. Results of a multicenter study of the retrievable Tulip vena cava filter: early clinical experience. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1997;20(1):10–16
  72. Nunn CR, Neuzil D, Naslund T, et al. Cost-effective method for bedside insertion of vena caval filters in trauma patients. J Trauma. 1997;43(5):752–758
  73. Offner PJ, Hawkes A, Madayag R, et al. The role of temporary inferior vena cava filters in critically ill surgical patients. Arch Surg. 2003;138(6):591–595
  74. O’Neil EE. Ligations of the Inferior Vena Cava in the prevention and treatment of pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 1945;252:641–646
  75. Owings JT, Kraut E, Battistella F, et al. Timing of the occurrence of pulmonary embolism in trauma patients. Arch Surg. 1997;132(8):862–867
  76. Pasquale M, Fabian TC. Practice management guidelines for trauma from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. J Trauma. 1998;44(6):941–957
  77. Patton JH, Fabian TC, Croce MA, et al. Prophylactic Greenfield filters: acute complications and long-term follow-up. J Trauma. 1996;41(2):231–237
  78. Pieri A, Santoro G, Duranti A, et al. Temporary caval filters. Our experience. Preliminary analysis of 24 cases. Phlebologie. 1993;46(3):457–466
  79. Pieri S, Agresti P, Morucci M, de’ Medici L. Optional vena cava filters: preliminary experience with a new vena cava filter. Radiol Med (Torino). 2003;105(1–2):56–62
  80. Poon WL, Luk SH, Yam KY, Lee AC. Mechanical thrombectomy in inferior vena cava thrombosis after caval filter placement: a report of three cases. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2002;25(5):440–443
  81. Quirke TE, Ritota PC, Swan KG. Inferior vena caval filter use in U.S. trauma centers: a practitioner survey. J Trauma. 1997;43(2):333–337
  82. Ravitch MM, Snodgrass E, McEnany T, Rivarola A. Compartmentation of the vena cava with the mechanical stapler. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1966;122(3):561–566
  83. Ray CE, Kaufman JA. Complications of inferior vena cava filters. Abdom Imaging. 1996;21(4):368–374
  84. Reed RA, Teitelbaum GP, Talor FC, et al. Use of the Bird's Nest filter in oversized inferior venae cavae. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1991;2:447–450
  85. Ricco JB, Crochet D, Sebilotte P, et al. Percutaneous transvenous caval interruption with the “LGM” filter: early results of a multicenter trial. Ann Vasc Surg. 1988;2(3):242–247
  86. Rodriguez JL, Lopez JM, Proctor MC, et al. Early placement of prophylactic vena caval filters in injured patients at high risk for pulmonary embolism. J Trauma. 1996;40(5):797–804
  87. Roehm JO, Gianturco C, Barth MH, Wright KC. Percutaneous transcatheter filter for the inferior vena cava. A new device for treatment of patients with pulmonary embolism. Radiology. 1984;150(1):255–257
  88. Roehm JO, Johnsrude IS, Barth MH, Gianturco C. The bird's nest inferior vena cava filter: progress report. Radiology. 1988;168(3):745–749
  89. Rogers FB, Shackford SR, Ricci MA, et al. Prophylactic vena cava filter insertion in selected high-risk orthopaedic trauma patients. J Orthop Traumatol. 1997;11(4):267–272
  90. Rogers FB, Shackford SR, Ricci MA, et al. Routine prophylactic vena cava filter insertion in severely injured trauma patients decreases the incidence of pulmonary embolism. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;180(6):641–647
  91. Rogers FB, Shackford SR, Wilson J, et al. Prophylactic vena cava filter insertion in severely injured trauma patients: indications and preliminary results. J Trauma. 1993;35(4):637–642
  92. Rogers FB, Strindberg G, Shackford SR, et al. Five-year follow-up of prophylactic vena cava filters in high-risk trauma patients. Arch Surg. 1998;133(4):406–412
  93. Rohrer MJ, Scheidler MG, Wheeler HB, Cutler BS. Extended indications for placement of an inferior vena cava filter. J Vasc Surg. 1989;10(1):44–50
  94. Rosenthal D, McKinsey JF, Levy AM, et al. Use of the Greenfield filter in patients with major trauma. Cardiovasc Surg. 1994;2(1):52–55
  95. Rosenthal D, Wellons ED, Levitt AB, et al. Role of prophylactic temporary inferior vena cava filters placed at the ICU bedside under intravascular ultrasound guidance in patients with multiple trauma. J Vasc Surg. 2004;40(5):958–964
  96. Rosenthal D, Wellons ED, Lai KM, et al. Retrievable inferior vena cava filters: initial clinical results. Ann Vasc Surg. 2006;20(1):157–165
  97. Rousseau H, Perreault P, Otal P, et al. The 6-F nitinol TrapEase inferior vena cava filter: results of a prospective multicenter trial. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001;12(3):299–304
  98. Sakuma M, Nakamura M, Nakanishi N, et al. Inferior vena cava filter is a new additional therapeutic option to reduce mortality from acute pulmonary embolism. Circ J. 2004;68(9):816–821
  99. Sarani B, Chun A, Venbrux A. Role of optional (retrievable) IVC filters in surgical patients at risk for venous thromboembolic disease. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201(6):957–964
  100. Schutzer R, Ascher E, Hingorani A, et al. Preliminary results of the new 6F TrapEase inferior vena cava filter. Ann Vasc Surg. 2003;17(1):103–106
  101. Sevitt S, Gallagher N. Venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a clinicopathological study in injured and burned patients. Br J Surg. 1961;48:485
  102. Sher MH. Complications in the application of the inferior vena cava umbrella technique. Arch Surg. 1971;103(6):688–690
  103. Simon M, Athanasoulis CA, Kim D, et al. Simon nitinol inferior vena cava filter: initial clinical experience. Work in progress. Radiology. 1989;172(1):99–103
  104. Spencer FC, Quattlebaum JK, Quattlebaum JK, et al. Plication of the inferior vena cava for pulmonary embolism: a report of 20 cases. Ann Surg. 1962;155:827–837
  105. Stacey CS, Manhire AR, Rose DH, Bishop MC. Bird's nest filter causing symptomatic hydronephrosis following transmural penetration of the inferior vena cava. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2004;27(1):61–63
  106. Stavropoulos SW, Clark T, Jacobs D, et al. Placement of a vena cava filter with an antecubital approach. Acad Radiol. 2002;9(4):478–481
  107. Stavropoulos SW. Inferior vena cava filters. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004;7(2):91–95
  108. Stein PD, Kayali F, Olson RE. Twenty-one-year trends in the use of inferior vena cava filters. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(14):1541–1545
  109. Stiegel D, Duesman JF. Experience with the Hunter-Sessions inferior vena cava balloon occluder. Arch Surg. 1979;114(6):746–747
  110. Stosslein F, Altmann E. A rare complication with an Antheor vena cava filter. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1998;21(2):165–167
  111. Streib EW, Wagner JW. Complications of vascular access procedures in patients with vena cava filters. J Trauma. 2000;49(3):553–558
  112. Sue LP, Davis JW, Parks SN. Iliofemoral venous injuries: an indication for prophylactic caval filter placement. J Trauma. 1995;39(4):693–695
  113. Taylor FC, Awh MH, Kahn CE, Lu CT. Vena Tech vena cava filter: experience and early follow-up. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1991;2(4):435–440
  114. Teitelbaum GP, Ortega HV, Vinitski S, et al. Low-artifact intravascular devices: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology. 1988;168(3):713–719
  115. Tola JC, Holtzman R, Lottenberg L. Bedside placement of inferior vena cava filters in the intensive care unit. Am Surg. 1999;65(9):833–837[discussion 837–8]
  116. Van Natta TL, Morris JA, Eddy VA, et al. Elective bedside surgery in critically injured patients is safe and cost-effective. Ann Surg. 1998;227(5):618–626
  117. Virchow R. Cellular pathology as based upon physiological and pathological histology. London: Churchill; 1860;p. 197–203
  118. Virchow RLK. Thrombosis and emboli. first ed.. Canton, MA, USA: Science History Publications; 1998;
  119. Vos LD, Tielbeek AV, Bom EP, et al. The Gunther temporary inferior vena cava filter for short-term protection against pulmonary embolism. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1997;20(2):91–97
  120. Watanabe AT, Teitelbaum GP, Gomes AS, Roehm JO. MR imaging of the bird's nest filter. Radiology. 1990;177(2):578–579
  121. Webb LX, Rush PT, Fuller SB, Meredith JW. Greenfield filter prophylaxis of pulmonary embolism in patients undergoing surgery for acetabular fracture. J Orthop Traumatol. 1992;6(2):139–145
  122. Wilson JT, Rogers FB, Wald SL, et al. Prophylactic vena cava filter insertion in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury: preliminary results. Neurosurgery. 1994;35(2):234–239
  123. Winchell RJ, Hoyt DB, Walsh JC, et al. Risk factors associated with pulmonary embolism despite routine prophylaxis: implications for improved protection. J Trauma. 1994;37(4):600–606
  124. Wingerd M, Bernhard VM, Maddison F, Towne JB. Comparison of caval filters in the management of venous thromboembolism. Arch Surg. 1978;113(11):1264–1271
  125. Wittenberg G, Kueppers V, Tschammler A, et al. Long-term results of vena cava filters: experiences with the LGM and the titanium Greenfield devices. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1998;21(3):225–229
  126. Wojcik R, Cipolle MD, Fearen I, et al. Long-term follow-up of trauma patients with a vena caval filter. J Trauma. 2000;49(5):839–843
  127. Zolfaghari D, Johnson B, Weireter LJ, Britt LD. Expanded use of inferior vena cava filters in the trauma population. Surg Annu. 1995;27:99–105
  128. Zwaan M, Lorch H, Kulke C, et al. Clinical experience with temporary vena caval filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1998;9(4):594–601

PII: S0020-1383(06)00544-4

doi:10.1016/j.injury.2006.08.054

Injury
Volume 38, Issue 1 , Pages 7-18, January 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution