Vivian Lee Bishay BS, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

S. William Stavropoulos MD, Presenter: Consultant, C. R. Bard, Inc Advisory Board, Teleflex Incorporated Research grant, W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc Research, B. Braun Melsungen AG

Richard D. Shlansky-Goldberg MD, Abstract Co-Author: Research grant, Boston Scientific Corporation Research grant, Talecris Biotherapeutics, Inc Consultant, Talecris Biotherapeutics, Inc Consultant, Cook Group Incorporated

Scott O. Trerotola MD, Abstract Co-Author: Royalties, Teleflex Incorporated Royalties, Cook Group Incorporated Consultant, Medcomp Consultant, C. R. Bard, Inc Consultant, Teleflex Incorporated Consultant, W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc Consultant, Grant Adler Corporation Consultant, Pursuit Medical Consultant, B Braun Medical, Inc

Michael Christopher Soulen MD, Abstract Co-Author: Royalties, Cambridge University Press Consultant, Guerbet SA

Cormac Farrelly MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Mandeep Sanat Dagli MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Jeffrey Ian Mondschein MD, Abstract Co-Author: Research grant, Boston Scientific Corporation Research grant, Talecris Biotherapeutics, Inc Consultant, Talecris Biotherapeutics, Inc

To compare clinical outcomes of patients who received retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters employed as permanent devices and those receiving permanent filters.

A retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who received IVC filters in 2006 and 2007 was conducted with IRB approval. Patients who had either a permanent filter (PF) or a retrievable filter (RF) that was left in situ as a permanent device and had at least 1 month clinical follow up were included. Clinical outcomes and complication rates were compared across the two groups.

One hundred and sixty eight IVC filters in 167 patients were included in this study: 41.07% (69) were permanent filters including 51 Venatech and 18 Greenfield and 58.93% (99) were retrievable including 80 G2, 13 Gunther Tulip and 6 Celect filters. No attempts were made to retrieve any of the filters. Mean follow-up duration was 18.8 months (1- 56.2 mo) for PF recipients and 21.1 months (1-54.9 months) for those with RFs (p=0.2). Patients with PFs and RFs experienced caval thrombus (1.47% vs 0%; p=0.2), new PE (1.47% vs 2.02%; p=0.8), recurrent DVT (17.75% vs 9.09%; p=0.09) and recurrent PE (5.88% vs 1.01%; p=0.7) respectively, at similar rates. No filter fractures or migrations were seen in either group.

The clinical effectiveness and complications rates were similar for patients with permanent filters compared to thosee receiving retrievable filters that were left in place as permanent devices.

Retrievable IVC filters left in place as permenant devices demonstrate similar clinical effectiveness and complication rates compared to permanent IVC filters.

Bishay, V, Stavropoulos, S, Shlansky-Goldberg, R, Trerotola, S, Soulen, M, Farrelly, C, Dagli, M, Mondschein, J, Clinical Outcomes of Permanent IVC Filters vs Retrievable IVC Filters Placed as Permanent Devices.  Radiological Society of North America 2011 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, November 26 - December 2, 2011 ,Chicago IL. http://archive.rsna.org/2011/11004605.html