Journal Information
Vol. 44. Issue 11.
Pages 591-596 (January 2008)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 44. Issue 11.
Pages 591-596 (January 2008)
Original Articles
Full text access
Removal of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters 90 Days After Implantation in an Ovine Model: Is There a Time Limit for Removal?
Visits
8497
Miguel Ángel de Gregorioa,
Corresponding author
mgregori@unizar.es

Correspondence: Dr. M.A. de Gregorio Gómez Laguna, 13, 5º B 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
, Alicia Labordaa, María Teresa Higueraa, Fernando Lostalea, Javier Gómez-Arruea, Carolina Serranoa, Miguel Ángel Martínezb, Américo Viloriaa
a Unidad de Cirugía Mínimamente Invasiva Guiada por Imagen, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Zaragoza, Spain
b I3A, Instituto de Investigación en Ingeniería de Aragón, Grupo de Mecánica, Estructural y Modelado de Materiales, Escuela Politécnica Superior, Universidad de Zaragoza, Spain
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Objective

To study the feasibility and safety of removing retrievable Günther-Tulip vena cava filters (GTFs) 90 days after their implantation in an ovine model.

Material and methods

Thirty GTFs were implanted in 30 ewes and retrieval was attempted at 90 days. Conventional cavography was performed in all cases before and after retrieval in order to evaluate inferior vena cava patency and record dimensions. The presence of complications related to placement and retrieval of the filter from the inferior vena cava was also recorded. The force required to remove the filters was measured using a modified commercial dynamometer adapted to the GTF retrieval set. Histologic study focused on the inferior vena cava wall.

Results

Implantation was performed successfully in all cases (100%). One ewe developed a small focus of thrombosis around 1 of the legs of the filter and another presented a small thrombus within the filter. Retrieval of the filter was attempted in all 30 sheep at 90 days and the result was satisfactory in all but 1 case (96.6%). None of the GTFs required a force greater than 12 N to disengage the hooks of the filter from the wall. No complications were detected on venacavography or at autopsy. Variable degrees of fibrosis were observed in the histologic study.

Conclusions

Retrieval of GTFs 90 days after implantation in an ovine model was feasible, safe, and easy, and required little force (median, 4.2 N).

Key words:
Filters
Inferior vena cava
Pulmonary embolism
Objetivo

Estudiar la posibilidad y la seguridad de recuperar filtros opcionales de vena cava Günther-Tulip (FGT) a los 90 días de su implantación inicial en un modelo animal ovino

Material y métodos

Se implantaron 30 FGT en otras tantas ovejas hembras y se intentó recuperarlos 90 días después de su implantación. Se realizó cavografía convencional en todos los casos antes y después de la recuperación, para evaluar la permeabilidad de la vena cava. Se obtuvieron medidas de la vena cava y se documentó la presencia de complicaciones relativas a la implantación y recuperación del filtro de vena cava inferior (VCI). Se midió la fuerza requerida para recuperar los filtros de vena cava con un dinamómetro comercial modificado y adaptado al equipo de recuperación de FGT. El estudio histológico se centró en la pared de la VCI.

Resultados

La implantación se efectuó con éxito en todos los casos (100%). Una oveja desarrolló un pequeño foco de trombosis en una de las patas del filtro y otra presentó un trombo pequeño en el interior del filtro. Se intentó la recuperación del filtro en las 30 ovejas y, excepto en un caso, el resultado fue satisfactorio (96,6%). En la recuperación de los 30 FGT, la fuerza necesaria para desenganchar las patas del filtro de la VCI fue menor de 12 newtons (N). No se observó ninguna complicación en los cavogramas ni en la autopsia. Se observaron diferentes grados de fibrosis en el estudio histológico.

Conclusiones

En un modelo animal ovino, la recupera-ción de FGT a los 90 días de su implantación es posible, segura y fácil, y requiere poca fuerza (mediana: 4,2 N).

Palabras clave:
Filtros
Vena cava inferior
Embolia pulmonar
Full text is only aviable in PDF
References
[1]
TB Kinney.
Update on inferior vena cava filters.
J Vasc Interv Radiol, 14 (2003), pp. 425-440
[2]
RH White, H Zhou, J Kim, P Romano.
A population-based study of the effectiveness of inferior vena cava filter use among patients with venous thromboembolism.
Arch Intern Med, 160 (2000), pp. 2033-2041
[3]
H Decousus.
Eight-year follow-up of a randomized trial investigating vena caval filters in the prevention of PE in patients presenting a proximal DVT: the PREPIC trial.
J Thromb Haemost, 1 (2003), pp. OC440
[4]
SF Millward, J Bormanis, BE Burbridge, SJ Markman, R Peterson.
Preliminary clinical experience with the Günther temporary inferior vena cava filter.
J Vasc Interv Radiol, 5 (1994), pp. 863-868
[5]
SF Millward, VL Oliva, SD Bell, DA Valenti, P Rasuli, M Asch, et al.
Günther Tulip retrievable vena cava filter: results from the Registry of the Canadian Interventional Radiology Association.
J Vasc Interv Radiol, 12 (2001), pp. 1053-1058
[6]
M Asch.
Initial experience in humans with a new retrievable inferior vena cava filter.
Radiology, 225 (2002), pp. 835-844
[7]
D Rosenthal, ED Wellons, KM Lai, A Bikk.
Retrievable inferior vena cava filters: early clinical experience.
J Cardiovasc Surg, 46 (2005), pp. 163-169
[8]
SF Millward.
Vena cava filters: continuing the search for an ideal device.
J Vasc Interv Radiol, 16 (2005), pp. 1423-1425
[9]
JM Neuerburg, S Handt, K Beckert, K Tonn, E Rasmussen, D Hunter, et al.
Percutaneous retrieval of the Tulip vena cava filter: feasibility, short-and long-term changes – an experimental study in dogs.
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 24 (2001), pp. 418-423
[10]
MA de Gregorio, MJ Gimeno, R Tobio, F Lostale, A Mainar, JM Beltrán, et al.
Animal experience in the Günther Tulip retrievable inferior vena cava filter.
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 24 (2001), pp. 413-417
[11]
OA Terhaar, S Lyon, M Given, A Foster, F McGrath, M Lee.
Extended Interval for retrieval of Günther tulip filters.
J Vasc Interv Radiol, 15 (2004), pp. 1257-1262
[12]
A Bansal, JD Gates.
Inferior vena cava filter removal after 317-day implantation.
J Vasc Interv Radiol, 16 (2005), pp. 395-398
[13]
JR Kachura.
Inferior vena cava filter removal after 475-day implantation.
J Vasc Interv Radiol, 16 (2005), pp. 1156-1158
[14]
CA Binkert, A Bansal, JD Gates.
Retrievability of the recovery vena cava filter after dwell times longer than 180 days.
J Vasc Interv Radiol, 17 (2006), pp. 299-302
[15]
CA Binkert, A Bansal, JD Gates.
Inferior vena cava filter removal after 317-day implantation.
J Vasc Interv Radiol, 16 (2005), pp. 395-398
[16]
MA de Gregorio, P Gamboa, DL Bonilla, M Sánchez, MT Higuera, J Medrano, et al.
Retrieval of Gunther Tulip optional vena cava filters 30 days after implantation: a prospective clinical study.
J Vasc Interv Radiol, 17 (2006), pp. 1781-1789
[17]
A Hamada, AY Goktay, D Pavcnik, JA Kaufman, BT Uchida, HA Timmermans, et al.
Long-term optional retrievability of a new inferior vena cava filter in an ovine model.
J Vasc Interv Radiol, 16 (2005), pp. 1505-1509
[18]
EN Brountzos, JA Kaufman, AC Venbrux, PR Brown, J Harry, TF Kinst, et al.
A new optional vena cava filter: retrieval at 12 weeks in an animal model.
J Vasc Interv Radiol, 14 (2003), pp. 763-772
[19]
JE Lopera, JU Araki, D Kirsch, Z Qian, A Brazzini, A González, et al.
Modified technique to minimize filter tilting during deployment of the Günther Tulip filter: in vitro study.
J Vasc Interv Radiol, 16 (2005), pp. 1539-1544
[20]
H June.
Inferior vena cava filter: search for an ideal device.
[21]
H Decousus, A Leizorovicz, F Parent, Y Page, B Tardy, P Girard, et al.
A clinical trial of vena caval filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis.
N Engl J Med, 338 (1998), pp. 409-415
[22]
MA de Gregorio, MJ Gimeno, F Lostalé, P Iñigo, MC Artigas, A Viloria, et al.
Retrievability of uncoated versus paclitaxel-coated Günther-Tulip IVC filters in an animal model.
J Vasc Interv Radiol, 15 (2004), pp. 719-726
[23]
MA de Gregorio, P Gamboa, MJ Gimeno, B Madariaga, R Tobio, ER Alfonso.
The Günther Tulip filter: prolonged temporary filtration by repositioning within the inferior vena cava.
J Vasc Interv Radiol, 14 (2003), pp. 1259-1265
[24]
MA de Gregorio, ER Alfonso, A Mainar, JA Fernández, I Ariño, P Rubio, et al.
Seguimiento clínico y por medios de imagen a largo plazo de los filtros de vena cava inferior. Estudio transversal.
Arch Bronconeumol, 31 (1995), pp. 151-156
[25]
D Bonilla, T Higuera, J Gómez Arrue, A Laborda, MA de Gregorio.
Demostración mediante cirugía laparoscópica de la penetración de la pared de la VCI por filtros en un modelo bovino.
Cir Esp, 62 (2007), pp. 1
[26]
D Rosenthal, ED Wellns, S Hancock, AE Burkett.
Retrievability of the Günther Tulip vena cava filter after dwell times longer than 180 days in patients with multiple trauma.
J Endovasc Ther, 14 (2007), pp. 406-410
[27]
V Berczi, JR Bottomley, SM Thomas, S Taneja, PA Gaines, TJ Cleveland.
Long term retrievability of IVC filters: should we abandon permanent devices?.
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 30 (2007), pp. 820-827
[28]
AH Mahnken, J Pfeffer, S Stanzel, A Mossdorf, R Gunther, T Schmitz-Rode.
In vitro evaluation of optionally retrievable and permanent filters.
Invest Radiol, 42 (2007), pp. 529-535
Copyright © 2008. Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica (SEPAR)
Archivos de Bronconeumología
Article options
Tools

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?