Search

Introduction: Venous thromboembolism is a potentially fatal condition and frequent in oncologic patients. Quite often full anticoagulation is unfeasible, and placement of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter becomes an option. Clinical indication, however, is controversial and expensive. Objective: To describe the demographic, clinical and epidemiological characteristics of oncologic patients submitted to IVC filter placement and their impact on global survival. Method: Retrospective cohort study with patients undergoing cancer treatment at INCA submitted to IVC filter placement from January 2015 to April 2017. Time between cancer diagnoses and death from any cause was considered for the analysis of the global 5-years survival. Descriptive analysis, survival estimates (Kaplan-Meyer) and Cox regression were performed. Results: 74 patients with a mean age of 54 (+15) years were included. Most of them had gynecological (52.7%) and digestive (20.3%) tumors. The median time between cancer diagnosis and IVC filter placement was 3.48 months (0-203). In the follow-up, 40 deaths (54.1%) were observed with a median time of 25 months (95% CI; 1.76 to 47.32). In the adjusted analysis, 5.63 times greater risk of death was verified in patients with IVC filter placement within six months after cancer diagnosis (HR=4.99; 95% CI; 2.20-11.33; p

International audience; The aim of this article is to report a case of filter-associated inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombosis with perforation of the duodenum and penetration of a vertebral body by the filter struts.Case report: A 37-year-old woman with a medical history of Behcet's disease treated with corticosteroids underwent placement of a retrievable IVC filter because of recurrent iliofemoral venous thrombosis regardless of therapeutic levels of anticoagulation. Despite a correct positioning of the filter, the second follow-up computed tomography scan, performed at 1 year, showed a complete thrombosis of the infrarenal IVC segment, with perforation of the vessel wall by the filter struts and penetration in the duodenum. The patient remained asymptomatic. Open surgical removal of the filter with resection of the affected vena cava without vascular reconstruction was planned. The operation was performed under general anesthesia, surgical exposure was performed through a small midline laparotomy, and a duodenal Kocher maneuver was then performed to expose the IVC. The filter struts were found to have completely passed the cava wall in multiple directions. 2 struts penetrated through the duodenal serosa and 1 strut was embedded in the L3 periosteum. The IVC filter was successfully removed en bloc with the segment of the thrombosed and retracted IVC. The stumps were closed with 3-0 running polypropylene sutures and the duodenal lesions were closed with vicryl seromuscular sutures. No vascular reconstruction was necessary due to the marked development of collateral venous circulation. The patient was discharged home on postoperative day 6 and is doing well 6 months after surgery.Conclusions: Patients with IVC penetration of filter struts are usually asymptomatic, as was our patient. However, a high level of clinical suspicion for perforation should be maintained when facing nonspecific abdominal or back pain, and in episodes of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with an IVC filter. We recommend that patients with implanted IVC filters, even those who are asymptomatic, should receive regular imaging follow-up, and retrievable filters should be removed as soon as they are no longer needed.

Purpose: To evaluate the performance and safety of the Trellis-8 system, a pharmacomechanical thrombolysis infusion catheter, and adjunctive therapies in the treatment of symptomatic inferior vena cava (IVC) filter–related acute thrombotic occlusion. Methods: Eight consecutive patients (6 men; mean age 57.4 years, range 34–78 years) with acute thrombotic occlusion of the IVC in the presence of an IVC filter underwent percutaneous venous thrombectomy using the Trellis-8 thrombectomy system and adjunctive techniques between January 2009 and November 2013. Demographics, clinical data, procedures, and outcomes were retrospectively reviewed. All patients had clinical signs of lower extremity venous hypertension on presentation. The median time between IVC filter placement and occlusion was 25 months. Patients were followed for the development of thromboembolic complications to the last clinic visit or until they died. Results: The procedure was technically successful in 6 patients, whereas it could not be performed in 2 due to failure to cross the occlusion. The median follow-up period was 7.8 months, at which time all patients undergoing successful Trellis-8 thrombectomy had relief of symptoms without thromboembolic or bleeding complications. Conclusion: In this limited performance and safety evaluation, the Trellis-8 thrombectomy system combined with adjunctive therapies, such as mechanical thrombectomy and balloon angioplasty, was effective in 75% of patients with IVC filter–related acute caval occlusion.