Practice patterns of retrievable inferior vena cava filters and predictors of filter retrieval in patients with pulmonary embolism

Abstract

Retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are increasingly used in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) who have contraindications to anticoagulant therapy. However, previous studies have shown that many retrievable filters are left permanently in patients. This study aimed to identify the common indications for IVC filter insertion, the filter retrieval rate, and the predictive factors for filter retrieval attempts. To this end, a retrospective cohort study was performed at a tertiary care center in South Korea between January 2010 and May 2016. Electronic medical charts were reviewed for patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) who underwent IVC filter insertion. A total of 439 cases were reviewed. The most common indication for filter insertion was a preoperative/procedural aim, followed by extensive iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Retrieval of the IVC filter was attempted in 44.9% of patients. The retrieval success rate was 93.9%. History of cerebral hemorrhage, malignancy, and admission to a nonsurgical department were the significant predictive factors of a lower retrieval attempt rate in multivariate analysis. With the increased use of IVC filters, more issues should be addressed before placing a filter and physicians should attempt to improve the filter retrieval rate.

Keywords

inferior vena cava (IVC) filter pulmonary embolism (PE)retrievable filter venous thromboembolism (VTE)deep vein thrombosis (DVT)

Introduction

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are vascular devices implanted to prevent pulmonary embolism (PE), which can lead to fatal consequences.¹ With the improvements in insertion techniques, it has become easier to place IVC filters.² In addition, the introduction of retrievable filters has encouraged the use of IVC filters.^3,4 The idea that retrievable filters can be an option for patients with transient contraindications to anticoagulation is attractive. However, in practice, many inserted filters are left permanently in patients. According to a recent systematic review of 37 studies, the overall filter removal rate was only 34%.⁵

The result of the PREPIC 2 study showed no benefit of IVC filters in anticoagulated patients with acute PE as compared with patients receiving anticoagulation alone.⁶ IVC filters are not harmless; they are associated with several complications, including filter migration, filter strut fracture, organ penetration, recurrent deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and vena cava thrombosis.⁷ Despite the potential complications, the risk of retained filters tends to be underestimated in clinical practice.

Only a few studies have previously investigated the factors predictive of retrieval success,^8–12 and there has been no report from Asia about the retrieval success rate and the factors associated with retrieval attempts. To analyze the current pattern of IVC filter insertion and the reasons for the low retrieval rate, we aimed to identify the common indications for IVC filter insertion, the filter retrieval rate, and the factors associated with retrieval attempts.

Methods

Study design and subjects

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with PE at Asan Medical Center, a 2700-bed tertiary care center in South Korea, between January 2010 and May 2016. Patients aged 18 years or older and with a consultation record for IVC filter insertion were screened for the study. The diagnosis of PE and DVT was made by each attending physician based on the imaging findings from pulmonary computed tomography (CT) angiography, a ventilation/perfusion scan, lower extremity venographic CT, and lower extremity venous Doppler ultrasound. All images were initially read by radiologists at our institution, and each CT and ultrasound image was checked once more by the authors.

Filter placement and retrieval

Interventional radiologists placed all IVC filters. IVC filter insertions were performed in an angiography suite with venographic and fluoroscopic guidance. Filters were placed infrarenally unless otherwise indicated. Celect filters (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA) and OPTEASE filters (Cordis, Milpitas, CA, USA) were used in 415 and 24 patients, respectively.

Retrieval of the IVC filter was considered in patients who could undergo anticoagulation and were considered to have a low risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) at the time of retrieval. There was no defined protocol for the retrieval of filters or the timing of retrieval; the decision to remove the filter depended on each case. Filter retrieval was performed via the Günther Tulip vena cava filter retrieval set (Cook Medical).

Data collection

Clinical characteristics were collected from the medical charts, including electronic medical records and the Asan Biomedical Research Environment. The electronic medical records of 445 cases were manually reviewed for age, sex, body mass index, admitting services, risk factors for VTE, medical comorbidities, date of filter insertion and removal, filter complications, presence of DVT, and severity of PE. The severity of PE was calculated by using the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index.¹³

The study was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) of Asan Medical Center (IRB no. 2015-0516). The need for informed consent was waived owing to the retrospective nature of the study. Moreover, we used encoded numbers for patient identification to maintain confidentiality.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics are provided for patient demographics. The data are presented as means and standard deviations for continuous variables, whereas the indwelling time of IVC filters is presented as median and range. Categorical variables are presented as numbers (%). Variables were chosen as candidates for multivariable analyses with binary logistic regression if they were statistically significant in the univariate analysis using the chi-squared test. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data were analyzed by using SPSS version 21 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Clinical characteristics of patients

A total of 445 cases were reviewed for the analysis, and four cases were excluded because IVC filter insertion was not performed. Another two cases without evidence of PE were excluded because of possible heterogeneity in clinical characteristics and the small number (two); thus, 439 cases were eventually included in the analysis. Two patients underwent IVC filter placement twice. One patient experienced bleeding during anticoagulation after filter removal and required reinsertion of the IVC filter. Another patient was scheduled for surgery after the first filter had been removed, and decided to undergo filter insertion for the second time.

The clinical characteristics of the patients are described in Table 1. The mean patient age was 60.3 years, and 255 patients (58.1%) were women. A total of 220 IVC filter insertions (50.1%) were ordered from the medical department and 219 cases (49.9%) were ordered from the surgical department. More than half of the patients had an active malignancy at the time of PE diagnosis. The most common malignancy was lung cancer (38 cases, not shown in the table). In 359 cases (81.8%), DVT was found concurrently with PE. Right ventricular dysfunction was also present in 98 patients (22.3%).

Table 1.

Clinical characteristics of patients.

	Total (n = 439)
Age, years, mean ± SD	60.3 ± 15.4
Sex
Female, n (%)	255 (58.1)
Male, n (%)	184 (41.9)
Body mass index, kg/ m², mean ± SD	24.1 ± 4.3
Admitting service
Medical department, n (%)	220 (50.1)
Surgical department, n (%)	219 (49.9)
History of DVT, n (%)	28 (6.4)
Recent surgery, n (%)	59 (13.4)
Recent fracture, n (%)	50 (11.4)
Malignancy, n (%)	253 (57.6)
Chronic lung disease, n (%)	49 (11.2)
Congestive heart failure, n (%)	18 (4.1)
History of stroke, n (%)	28 (6.4)
Connective tissue disease, n (%)	12 (2.7)
History of cerebral hemorrhage, n (%)	14 (3.2)
DVT at time of PE diagnosis
Present	359 (81.8)
Absent	53 (12.1)
Unknown	27 (6.2)
Cause of PE
Provoked PE, n (%)	361 (82.2)
Severity of PE
Simplified PESI 0	106 (24.1)
Simplified PESI 1	222 (50.6)
Simplified PESI 2	74 (16.9)
Simplified PESI 3	29 (6.6)
Simplified PESI 4	8 (1.8)

SD, standard deviation; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; PE, pulmonary embolism; PESI, Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index.

Indications for filter insertion

We found six common indications for IVC filter insertion (Table 2). The most frequent indication was preoperative/procedural insertion in 136 cases (31.0%), followed by extensive iliofemoral DVT in 105 patients (23.9%). In 71 patients (16.2%) and 30 patients (6.8%), an IVC filter was implanted because of a contraindication to anticoagulation and complication of anticoagulation, respectively. Medical therapy had failed in 19 patients (4.3%). Nine IVC filters (2.1%) were inserted in patients with poor cardiopulmonary reserve. For 69 cases (15.7%), the reason for filter insertion was unclear, despite a thorough review of the medical charts.

Table 2.

Indications for IVC filter insertion.

	Total(n = 439)	Medical(n = 220)	Surgical(n = 219)
Indication for insertion
Contraindication to anticoagulation, n (%)	71 (16.2)	49 (22.3)	22 (10.0)
Complication of anticoagulation, n (%)	30 (6.8)	23 (10.5)	7 (3.2)
Failure of anticoagulation, n (%)	19 (4.3)	17 (7.7)	2 (0.9)
Poor cardiopulmonary reserve, n (%)	9 (2.1)	9 (4.1)	0 (0.0)
Preoperative/procedural, n (%)	136 (31.0)	46 (20.9)	90 (41.1)
Extensive iliofemoral DVT, n (%)	105 (23.9)	37 (16.8)	68 (31.1)
Uncertain, n (%)	69 (15.7)	39 (17.7)	30 (13.7)

IVC, inferior vena cava; DVT, deep vein thrombosis.

Rates of filter retrieval

A total of 197 trials (44.9%) of filter retrieval were made, and 185 filters were successfully removed (42.1%) (Table 3). The success rate was 93.9%. Among 12 patients in whom filter removal failed, IVC thrombus was found in seven patients when filter retrieval was attempted. Anticoagulation therapy was maintained in these patients and a second trial was not attempted in four of these patients. Meanwhile, in another two patients, thrombus was resolved, but removal was not possible because the filter was embedded in the IVC. In the remaining patient, an IVC thrombus was still noticed when the second trial was made after 2 weeks and the filter was retained.

Table 3.

Rates of filter retrieval.

	Total(n = 439)	Medical(n = 220)	Surgical(n = 219)
Trial of filter removal, n (%)	197 (44.9)	74 (33.6)	123 (56.2)
Successful retrieval, n (%)	185 (42.1)	67 (30.5)	118 (53.9)
Indwelling time of IVC filter, days, median (range)	20 (1−220)	18 (2−125)	20 (1−220)
Anticoagulation start before IVC filter insertion, n (%)	356 (81.1)	174 (79.1)	182 (83.1)
Anticoagulation maintenance after IVC filter insertion, n (%)	379 (86.3)	174 (79.1)	205 (93.5)
IVC filter complication, n (%)	9 (2.1)	5 (2.3)	4 (1.8)
Filter tip embedding, n (%)	1 (0.2)	1 (0.5)	0 (0.0)
IVC thrombosis and proximal DVT, n (%)	7 (1.6)	4 (1.8)	3 (1.4)
IVC penetration, n (%)	1 (0.2)	0 (0.0)	1 (0.4)

IVC, inferior vena cava; DVT, deep vein thrombosis.

The median time of filter indwelling was 20 days. There was no significant difference in the filter indwelling time between cases referred from the medical department and those from the surgical department (18 and 20 days, respectively; p=0.965; p-value not shown in the table).

Among 439 patients, 379 (86.3%) were able to receive therapeutic anticoagulation after IVC filter insertion. This means that 86.3% of patients were able to maintain anticoagulant therapy at discharge and should have been considered for the removal of the IVC filter.

Overall, nine cases (2.1%) were found to have complications from IVC filters. IVC penetration was found in one case; however, there was no evidence of bleeding. The most common complication was newly developed thrombosis, including IVC thrombus and proximal DVT.

Predictors of attempts at IVC filter retrieval

Some variables were chosen a priori for the analysis. Ten clinical variables were analyzed, including demographic factors, such as old age, female sex, and obesity, as well as risk factors for VTE, such as malignancy (Table 4). A history of cerebral hemorrhage, malignancy, and admittance to the surgical department were statistically significant variables in multivariate analysis (Table 5). Body mass index > 25 kg/m², recent surgery, and recent fracture were statistically significant variables in univariate analysis; however, they were no longer significant in multivariate analysis.

Table 4.

Univariate analysis for predictors of IVC filter removal.

Clinical variables	With trial(n = 197)	Without trial(n = 242)	p-value
Age > 70 years	61	79	0.758
Female	111	144	0.560
Body mass index > 25 kg/m²	88	81	0.018
Malignancy	73	180	0.000
Recent surgery	36	23	0.011
Recent fracture	37	13	0.000
History of stroke	11	17	0.563
History of cerebral hemorrhage	2	12	0.026
Admission to surgical department	123	96	0.000
History of DVT	11	17	0.563

IVC, inferior vena cava; DVT, deep vein thrombosis.

Table 5.

Multivariate analysis for predictors of IVC filter removal.

Clinical variables	Odds ratio	95% confidence interval	p-value
Body mass index > 25 kg/m²	1.408	0.901–2.199	0.133
Malignancy	0.178	0.112–0.285	0.000
Recent surgery	1.626	0.853–3.100	0.140
Recent fracture	2.204	0.998–4.864	0.051
History of cerebral hemorrhage	0.088	0.017–0.457	0.004
Admission to surgical department	2.785	1.767–4.389	0.000

IVC, inferior vena cava.

Discussion

This study is the first report from Asia to investigate the indications of IVC filter insertion, filter retrieval rate, and predictors of filter retrieval. We found that attempts at filter retrieval were made in 44.9% of the cases, a rate that is slightly higher than those previously reported elsewhere,^7,14–16 but that remains lower than desirable. Many of the patients with retained filters seemed to be eligible for filter retrieval, as they were receiving anticoagulant therapy. Once retrieval was attempted, the success rate was > 90%. Three significant factors were associated with fewer retrieval attempts in multivariate analysis: a history of cerebral hemorrhage, malignancy, and admittance to the medical department.

The indications for filter insertion are somewhat controversial, creating confusion among physicians. In contrast to the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines,¹⁷ which advocate the use of IVC filters only in patients with contraindications to anticoagulant therapy, other societies accept broader indications. For example, the American Heart Association guidelines state that an IVC filter is used in patients with acute PE and very poor cardiopulmonary reserve, including those with massive PE.¹⁸ The Society of Interventional Radiology provided more liberal indications, including free-floating iliofemoral or IVC thrombus, recurrent PE in spite of adequate therapy, and prophylactic indications.¹⁹ This variability in indications for IVC filters among different societal guidelines causes confusion. For example, we encountered different opinions among vascular surgeons and pulmonologists at our institution about when to insert IVC filters. Moreover, the second most common indication found in this study was extensive iliofemoral DVT, which is not an indication according to the ACCP guidelines. The recently updated 2016 ACCP guidelines²⁰ strongly emphasize that an IVC filter should be inserted only in patients with contraindications to anticoagulation therapy. The discrepancy between the guidelines from various societies needs to be resolved.

A retrospective study in 2002 revealed no clinical benefit of IVC filters in patients with malignancy, in terms of overall survival rates.²¹ However, in this study, physicians tended to retain the filters 5.6 times more frequently in patients with malignancy. Previous studies observed the same trend.^9,12,22 This is because the patients are at a risk of developing VTE unless the underlying cancer is cured. The short life expectancy and overall poor condition of these patients also explain the low rate of retrieval attempts. However, it is striking that a significant proportion of these patients were discharged with anticoagulation therapy in our study (211 of 253 patients). Thus, active malignancy itself should not be the reason for filter retention.

If the patient had been admitted to the surgical department, the IVC filter was 2.8 times more likely to be retrieved. Among the patients admitted to the surgical department, 41.1% of IVC filters were inserted preoperatively. In contrast, only 20.9% of patients admitted to the medical department had preoperative indications. There may be a possibility that more filters were retrieved if they had been inserted preoperatively, explaining the higher retrieval rate in the surgical department.

In this study, the success rate of filter retrieval was high (93.9%) despite the low rate of retrieval attempts. The longest indwelling time of the filters that were successfully retrieved was 220 days. It is recommended that filters should be removed as soon as anticoagulation is initiated because longer indwelling times are associated with retrieval failure. The success rate of filter retrieval was 99% at 1 month after placement; however, the rate was as low as 37% at 12 months, according to a pooled analysis in a systematic review.⁵ However, with advances in retrieval techniques, IVC filters can now be retrieved more often, as shown in recent studies.^23,24 Given the overall high retrieval success rate and recent advances in technology, more effort should be made to retrieve filters whenever they are no longer needed.

Although, in this study, we did not evaluate the impact of follow-up care after discharge on the retrieval rate, previous studies have pointed out the importance of a retrieval plan and a dedicated filter clinic. One study suggested that ambiguities about which service was responsible for the decision on filter removal might have contributed to the high rate of filter retention.¹² Another study found that patients with discharge summaries of filter management instructions had significantly higher filter retrieval rates.⁸ Thus, physicians who deal with VTE (e.g. pulmonologists, vascular surgeons, oncologists, and interventional radiologists) should pay more attention to having an IVC filter retrieval plan. Furthermore, a recent study showed that IVC filter retrieval rates improved threefold with a multidisciplinary approach, including patient education and a visit to a thrombosis specialist.²⁵ In this regard, the establishment of an interdepartmental follow-up protocol may decrease the avoidable complications resulting from unnecessary filter retention.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, owing to the retrospective nature of the study, biases may be present. Second, our institution deals with a high volume of patients with cancer. In other institutions with different compositions of patients, the result may not be the same. Third, the complication rate of IVC filters seems lower than that reported in previous studies,²⁶ and it may have been underestimated because not all patients underwent follow-up imaging evaluations. Fourth, all the filters were inserted by radiologists in our institution, according to the decision of each attending physician; this practice pattern may differ from those in hospitals where other specialists, such as those in the departments of cardiology and vascular surgery, not only make the decision to place IVC filters, but also perform the filter insertion.

Conclusion

We analyzed the common indications for IVC filter insertion, the filter retrieval rates, and factors influencing the rate of retrieval attempts in this study. History of cerebral hemorrhage, malignancy, and admission to a nonsurgical department were the significant predictive factors of a lower retrieval attempt rate in multivariate analysis. With the increased use of IVC filters, more considerations should be addressed before placing a filter, and physicians should attempt to avoid unnecessary IVC filter placement and improve the retrieval rate.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: this study was supported by University of Ulsan College of Medicine.

References

Geerts

Jay

Code

et al . A comparison of low-dose heparin with low-molecular-weight heparin as prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism after major trauma. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 701–707.

Stein

Matta

Hull

RD.

Increasing use of vena cava filters for prevention of pulmonary embolism. Am J Med 2011; 124: 655–661.

Stein

Kayali

Olson

RE.

Twenty-one-year trends in the use of inferior vena cava filters. Arch Intern Med 2004; 164: 1541–1545.

Kaufman

Kinney

Streiff

et al . Guidelines for the use of retrievable and convertible vena cava filters: Report from the Society of Interventional Radiology multidisciplinary consensus conference. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006; 17: 449–459.

Angel

Tapson

Galgon

et al . Systematic review of the use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011; 22: 1522–1530.e3.

Mismetti

Laporte

Pellerin

et al . Effect of a retrievable inferior vena cava filter plus anticoagulation vs anticoagulation alone on risk of recurrent pulmonary embolism: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2015; 313: 1627–1635.

Sarosiek

Crowther

Sloan

JM.

Indications, complications, and management of inferior vena cava filters: The experience in 952 patients at an academic hospital with a level I trauma center. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173: 513–517.

Tao

Montbriand

Eisenberg

et al . Temporary inferior vena cava filter indications, retrieval rates, and follow-up management at a multicenter tertiary care institution. J Vasc Surg 2016; 64: 430–437.

Peterson

Yenson

Liu

et al . Predictors of attempted inferior vena cava filters retrieval in a tertiary care centre. Thromb Res 2014; 134: 300–304.

10.

Smith

Shanks

Guy

et al . Social and demographic factors influencing inferior vena cava filter retrieval at a single institution in the United States. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2015; 38: 1186–1191.

11.

Siracuse

Al Bazroon

Gill

et al . Risk factors of nonretrieval of retrievable inferior vena cava filters. Ann Vasc Surg 2015; 29: 318–321.

12.

Mission

Kerlan

Jr Tan

et al . Rates and predictors of plans for inferior vena cava filter retrieval in hospitalized patients. J Gen Intern Med 2010; 25: 321–325.

13.

Jimenez

Aujesky

Moores

et al . Simplification of the pulmonary embolism severity index for prognostication in patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170: 1383–1389.

14.

Renno

Khateeb

Kazan

et al . A single center experience with retrievable IVC filters. Vascular 2015; 23: 350–357.

15.

Dabbagh

Nagam

Chitima-Matsiga

et al . Retrievable inferior vena cava filters are not getting retrieved: Where is the gap? Thromb Res 2010; 126: 493–497.

16.

Grande

Trerotola

Reilly

et al . Experience with the recovery filter as a retrievable inferior vena cava filter. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005; 16: 1189–1193.

17.

Kearon

Akl

Comerota

et al . Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012; 141: e419S–e496S.

18.

Jaff

McMurtry

Archer

et al . Management of massive and submassive pulmonary embolism, iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis, and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2011; 123: 1788–1830.

19.

Caplin

Nikolic

Kalva

et al . Quality improvement guidelines for the performance of inferior vena cava filter placement for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011; 22: 1499–1506.

20.

Kearon

Akl

Ornelas

et al . Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report. Chest 2016; 149: 315–352.

21.

Jarrett

Dougherty

Calligaro

KD.

Inferior vena cava filters in malignant disease. J Vasc Surg 2002; 36: 704–707.

22.

Abtahian

Hawkins

Ryan

et al . Inferior vena cava filter usage, complications, and retrieval rate in cancer patients. Am J Med 2014; 127: 1111–1117.

23.

Kuo

Odegaard

Rosenberg

et al . Laser-assisted removal of embedded vena cava filters: A 5-year first-in-human study. Chest 2017; 151: 417–424.

24.

Pan

Zhao

Mei

et al . Retrievable inferior vena cava filters in trauma patients: Prevalence and management of thrombus within the filter. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2016; 52: 830–837.

25.

Winters

Morris

Holmes

et al . A multidisciplinary quality improvement program increases the inferior vena cava filter retrieval rate. Vasc Med 2017; 22: 51–56.

26.

Lee

Choi

et al . Clinical course and predictive factors for complication of inferior vena cava filters. Thromb Res 2014; 133: 538–543.