Melissa Chittle MS, Presenter: Nothing to Disclose

Stephan Wicky van Doyer MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

George Rachid De Oliveira MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Suvranu Ganguli MD, Abstract Co-Author: Research Grant, Merit Medical Systems, Inc Consultant, Boston Scientific Corporation

Raymond W. Liu MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Rahmi Oklu MD, PhD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Zubin Irani MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Thomas Gregory Walker MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Gloria Maria Martinez Salazar MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

To compare retrieval rates and number of days to retrieval in patients with optional IVC filters before and after adding the notation “Retrievable IVC filter” to the patients electronic medical record “Problems” list

In this IRB-approved retrospective study, 314 patients (age 11 – 96 years; 142 females, 171 males) who underwent IVC filter placement for temporary indications between 01/11/2011 and 03/10/2014 were studied. Our study group (n=154) consisted of patients in whom a notation was made to the EMR Problems list following filter implantation that stated: “Retrievable IVC filter: This should be retrieved when no longer indicated for PE protection”. The control group (n=160) had no such notation. All patients’ demographics, filter placement indications, procedure dates (filter placement/retrieval), complications, days to retrieval, retrieval rates and referral rates (patients who were referred by a clinician to IR for filter retrieval) were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using a Fischer’s exact test and unpaired t test.

There were no significant differences in demographics and filter placement indications between the control (n=160) and study groups (n=154). IVC filter retrieval rates in the study group (69/154; 42%) were significantly higher (p=0.0001) than the control group (31/160;19%). Direct patient referrals from clinicians for filter retrieval increased significantly in the study group (27/154; 18%;p=0.0001), as compared to the control group (5/160;3%). The number of days from insertion to filter retrieval in the study group (Mean 132.2, SD 98.786, SEM 7.96) was significantly less (p=0.001)  than in the control group (Mean 237.75 days, SD 189.8, SEM 15.00)

In this study, adding the notation “Retrievable IVC Filter” to the patients’ electronic medical record “Problems” list significantly increased patient referral to IR for filter retrieval, increased the overall filter retrieval rates and decreased the number of days to filter retrieval

There are complications secondary to  indwelling IVC filters(migration, fracture and DVT) in patients with optional filters. Therefore, continuous monitoring is paramount to ensure timely filter retrieval.

Chittle, M, Wicky van Doyer, S, Oliveira, G, Ganguli, S, Liu, R, Oklu, R, Irani, Z, Walker, T, Salazar, G, Optional IVC Filter Quality Improvement Project: Using the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) “Problems” List to Increase Retrieval Rates and Decrease Time to Filter Retrieval.  Radiological Society of North America 2014 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, - ,Chicago IL. http://archive.rsna.org/2014/14045706.html