To the Editor: The prophylactic use of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) in trauma patients for whom anticoagulation is contraindicated has markedly increased over the past few years. Their need for caval filtration is usually only transient, and once the risk of venous thromboembolism is deemed to be minimal, it would seem appropriate that IVCFs be retrieved. However, a large number of IVCFs remain in situ, due to either failure of retrieval or lack of follow-up. We observed a case that touches on both of these two major problems associated with IVCF retrieval.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA.
- 1. Ota S, Yamada N, Tsuji A, et al. The Gunther–Tulip retrievable IVC filter: clinical experience in 118 consecutive patients. Circ J 2008; 72: 287-292.
- 2. Ko SH, Reynolds BR, Nicholas DH, et al. Institutional protocol improves retrievable inferior vena cava filter recovery rate. Surgery 2009; 146: 809-814.
- 3. Karmy-Jones R, Jurkovich GJ, Velmahos GC, et al. Practice patterns and outcomes of retrievable vena cava filters in trauma patients: an AAST multicenter study. J Trauma 2007; 62: 17-24.
- 4. Kaufman JA, Kinney TB, Streiff MB, et al. Guidelines for the use of retrievable and convertible vena cava filters: report from the Society of Interventional Radiology multidisciplinary consensus conference. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006; 17: 449-459.