Optease and trapease vena cava filters: A single-center experience in 258 patients

Levent Onat, Ali Kursat Ganiyusufoglu, Ayhan Mutlu, Mustafa Sirvanci, Cihan Duran, Onur Levent Ulusoy, Azmi Hamzaoglu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the OptEase and TrapEase (both from Cordis, Roden, Netherlands) vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE). Between May 2004 and December 2008, OptEase (permanent/retrievable; n = 228) or TrapEase (permanent; n = 30) vena cava filters were placed in 258 patients (160 female and 98 male; mean age 62 years [range 22 to 97]). Indications were as follows: prophylaxis for PE (n = 239), contraindication for anticoagulation in the presence of PE or DVT (n = 10), and development of PE or DVT despite anticoagulation (n = 9). Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for indications, clinical results, and procedure-related complications during placement and retrieval. Clinical PE did not develop in any of the patients. However, radiologic signs of segmental PE were seen in 6 of 66 patients with follow-up imaging data. Migration or fracture of the filter or cava perforation was not seen in any of the patients. Except for a single case of asymptomatic total cava thrombosis, no thrombotic occlusion was observed. One hundred forty-one patients were scheduled to undergo filter removal; however, 17 of them were not suitable for such based on venography evaluation. Removal was attempted in 124 patients and was successful in 115 of these (mean duration of retention 11 days [range 4 to 23]). Nine filters could not be removed. Permanent/retrievable vena cava filters are safe and effective devices for PE prophylaxis and for the management of venous thromboembolism by providing the option to be left in place.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)992-997
Number of pages6
JournalCardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
Volume32
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Vena Cava Filters
Pulmonary Embolism
Phlebography
Venous Thromboembolism
Netherlands
Medical Records
Thrombosis
Safety
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • Deep venous thrombosis
  • IVC filters
  • Permanent/retrievable filters
  • Prophylactic filters
  • Pulmonary embolism
  • Thrombo embolism

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Optease and trapease vena cava filters : A single-center experience in 258 patients. / Onat, Levent; Ganiyusufoglu, Ali Kursat; Mutlu, Ayhan; Sirvanci, Mustafa; Duran, Cihan; Ulusoy, Onur Levent; Hamzaoglu, Azmi.

In: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology, Vol. 32, No. 5, 01.09.2009, p. 992-997.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Onat, L, Ganiyusufoglu, AK, Mutlu, A, Sirvanci, M, Duran, C, Ulusoy, OL & Hamzaoglu, A 2009, 'Optease and trapease vena cava filters: A single-center experience in 258 patients', CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 992-997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-009-9591-x
Onat, Levent ; Ganiyusufoglu, Ali Kursat ; Mutlu, Ayhan ; Sirvanci, Mustafa ; Duran, Cihan ; Ulusoy, Onur Levent ; Hamzaoglu, Azmi. / Optease and trapease vena cava filters : A single-center experience in 258 patients. In: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology. 2009 ; Vol. 32, No. 5. pp. 992-997.
@article{d2cd4e4d46a54405860c93ba72f7a733,
title = "Optease and trapease vena cava filters: A single-center experience in 258 patients",
abstract = "We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the OptEase and TrapEase (both from Cordis, Roden, Netherlands) vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE). Between May 2004 and December 2008, OptEase (permanent/retrievable; n = 228) or TrapEase (permanent; n = 30) vena cava filters were placed in 258 patients (160 female and 98 male; mean age 62 years [range 22 to 97]). Indications were as follows: prophylaxis for PE (n = 239), contraindication for anticoagulation in the presence of PE or DVT (n = 10), and development of PE or DVT despite anticoagulation (n = 9). Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for indications, clinical results, and procedure-related complications during placement and retrieval. Clinical PE did not develop in any of the patients. However, radiologic signs of segmental PE were seen in 6 of 66 patients with follow-up imaging data. Migration or fracture of the filter or cava perforation was not seen in any of the patients. Except for a single case of asymptomatic total cava thrombosis, no thrombotic occlusion was observed. One hundred forty-one patients were scheduled to undergo filter removal; however, 17 of them were not suitable for such based on venography evaluation. Removal was attempted in 124 patients and was successful in 115 of these (mean duration of retention 11 days [range 4 to 23]). Nine filters could not be removed. Permanent/retrievable vena cava filters are safe and effective devices for PE prophylaxis and for the management of venous thromboembolism by providing the option to be left in place.",
keywords = "Deep venous thrombosis, IVC filters, Permanent/retrievable filters, Prophylactic filters, Pulmonary embolism, Thrombo embolism",
author = "Levent Onat and Ganiyusufoglu, {Ali Kursat} and Ayhan Mutlu and Mustafa Sirvanci and Cihan Duran and Ulusoy, {Onur Levent} and Azmi Hamzaoglu",
year = "2009",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00270-009-9591-x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "992--997",
journal = "CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology",
issn = "7415-5101",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Optease and trapease vena cava filters

T2 - A single-center experience in 258 patients

AU - Onat, Levent

AU - Ganiyusufoglu, Ali Kursat

AU - Mutlu, Ayhan

AU - Sirvanci, Mustafa

AU - Duran, Cihan

AU - Ulusoy, Onur Levent

AU - Hamzaoglu, Azmi

PY - 2009/9/1

Y1 - 2009/9/1

N2 - We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the OptEase and TrapEase (both from Cordis, Roden, Netherlands) vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE). Between May 2004 and December 2008, OptEase (permanent/retrievable; n = 228) or TrapEase (permanent; n = 30) vena cava filters were placed in 258 patients (160 female and 98 male; mean age 62 years [range 22 to 97]). Indications were as follows: prophylaxis for PE (n = 239), contraindication for anticoagulation in the presence of PE or DVT (n = 10), and development of PE or DVT despite anticoagulation (n = 9). Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for indications, clinical results, and procedure-related complications during placement and retrieval. Clinical PE did not develop in any of the patients. However, radiologic signs of segmental PE were seen in 6 of 66 patients with follow-up imaging data. Migration or fracture of the filter or cava perforation was not seen in any of the patients. Except for a single case of asymptomatic total cava thrombosis, no thrombotic occlusion was observed. One hundred forty-one patients were scheduled to undergo filter removal; however, 17 of them were not suitable for such based on venography evaluation. Removal was attempted in 124 patients and was successful in 115 of these (mean duration of retention 11 days [range 4 to 23]). Nine filters could not be removed. Permanent/retrievable vena cava filters are safe and effective devices for PE prophylaxis and for the management of venous thromboembolism by providing the option to be left in place.

AB - We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the OptEase and TrapEase (both from Cordis, Roden, Netherlands) vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE). Between May 2004 and December 2008, OptEase (permanent/retrievable; n = 228) or TrapEase (permanent; n = 30) vena cava filters were placed in 258 patients (160 female and 98 male; mean age 62 years [range 22 to 97]). Indications were as follows: prophylaxis for PE (n = 239), contraindication for anticoagulation in the presence of PE or DVT (n = 10), and development of PE or DVT despite anticoagulation (n = 9). Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for indications, clinical results, and procedure-related complications during placement and retrieval. Clinical PE did not develop in any of the patients. However, radiologic signs of segmental PE were seen in 6 of 66 patients with follow-up imaging data. Migration or fracture of the filter or cava perforation was not seen in any of the patients. Except for a single case of asymptomatic total cava thrombosis, no thrombotic occlusion was observed. One hundred forty-one patients were scheduled to undergo filter removal; however, 17 of them were not suitable for such based on venography evaluation. Removal was attempted in 124 patients and was successful in 115 of these (mean duration of retention 11 days [range 4 to 23]). Nine filters could not be removed. Permanent/retrievable vena cava filters are safe and effective devices for PE prophylaxis and for the management of venous thromboembolism by providing the option to be left in place.

KW - Deep venous thrombosis

KW - IVC filters

KW - Permanent/retrievable filters

KW - Prophylactic filters

KW - Pulmonary embolism

KW - Thrombo embolism

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=69949131685&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=69949131685&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00270-009-9591-x

DO - 10.1007/s00270-009-9591-x

M3 - Article

C2 - 19449061

AN - SCOPUS:69949131685

VL - 32

SP - 992

EP - 997

JO - CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

JF - CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

SN - 7415-5101

IS - 5

ER -