Technical Success and Safety of Retrieval of the G2 Filter in a Prospective, Multicenter Study
Received 12 February 2009; received in revised form 9 August 2009; accepted 13 August 2009.
Purpose
To assess the technical success and safety for retrieval of the G2 filter.
Materials and Methods
The authors performed a prospective, multicenter study of 100 patients with temporary indication for caval interruption. Patients were enrolled consecutively between December 2005 and July 2006. There were 67 men and 33 women with a mean age of 52.1 years (range, 19–82 years). Indications for filter placement were trauma (n = 56), perioperative risk (n = 16), and medical indications (n = 28). Forty-two patients had venous thromboembolism at filter placement. Fifty-eight filters were placed prophylactically.
Results
Retrieval was attempted in 61 patients. Fifty-eight of the 61 filters (95%) were successfully retrieved after a mean dwell time of 140 days (range, 5–300 days). In all failed retrievals, the filter tip was against the caval wall. There was no difference in dwell times between successful and unsuccessful retrievals. Although there were no cases of cranial migration, caudal migrations were observed in 12% of cases (10 of 85 patients with a complete data set). Other device-related complications included filter fracture (1/85, 1.2%), filter tilt of more than 15° (15/85, 18%), and leg penetration (16/61, 26%). The recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE) rate was 2%, with no PE in the 30-day period after filter retrieval.
Conclusions
Retrieval of the Recovery G2 filter was safe and successful in most patients. Caudal migration was observed as an unexpected phenomenon.
aDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
bDepartment of Radiology, Inova Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, Virginia
cDepartment of Radiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
dDepartment of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
eDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
fDepartment of Radiology, Penn State Milton S. Hershey, Hershey, Pennsylvania
gDepartment of Radiology, Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
hDepartment of Radiology, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut
iDepartment of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
jDepartment of Radiology, George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC
kDepartment of Radiology, Dotter Interventional Institute, Portland, Oregon
Address correspondence to C.A.B., Institute of Radiology, Kantonsspital Winterthur, Brauerstrasse 15, 8401 Winterthur, Switzerland
From the 2008 SIR Annual Meeting.
The study was an industry-funded clinical research by Bard Peripheral, Tempe, Arizona. A.T.D. is a lecturer with honorarium at Bard Peripheral, F.C.L. is a paid consultant for Bard, and S.W.S. has a research grant from and is a consultant to BARD Peripheral. None of the other authors have identified a conflict of interest.
ABSTRACT