Dergiler / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2021 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 5

Lateral tilt during IVC filter placement does not predict the need for advanced filter retrieval techniques

Sayfa
644–648
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

CONCLUSION Lateral tilt at the time of placement is poorly associated with lateral tilt at the time of retrieval and does not correlate with the need for advanced retrieval technique.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:PURPOSE We aimed to determine if lateral inferior vena cava (IVC) filter tilt at placement predicts the need for subsequent advanced retrieval techniques.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:METHODS A retrospective chart review was performed of all Gunther Tulip IVC filter placements with subsequent retrievals between February 2015 and October 2017.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:CONCLUSION Lateral tilt at the time of placement is poorly associated with lateral tilt at the time of retrieval and does not correlate with the need for advanced retrieval technique.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:2015 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

PURPOSE We aimed to determine if lateral inferior vena cava (IVC) filter tilt at placement predicts the need for subsequent advanced retrieval techniques. METHODS A retrospective chart review was performed of all Gunther Tulip IVC filter placements with subsequent retrievals between February 2015 and October 2017. Chart and imaging review was performed for patient, filter placement, and filter retrieval demographics/characteristics. Degree of agreement between two measurement sets was evaluated with the intraclass correlation (ICC) analysis. Categorical variables were compared with chi-square or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. Kendall rank correlation was used to measure correlation between categorical variables. RESULTS There was poor agreement between filter tilt angle at the time of placement and retrieval (ICC coefficient, 0.54). Mean difference ± standard deviation between tilt angle at the time of placement and retrieval was 4.6°±4.3° (p = 0.35). Among patient- or procedure-related factors, a common femoral vein access on placement (regression coefficient, -2.90; p = 0.039) was associated with a lower difference between placement and retrieval filter tilt angles compared to internal jugular vein access. Higher filter tilt angle measured at the time of retrieval (OR: 1.19, p = 0.025), hook embedment (OR: 77.3, p < 0.001), and a longer dwell time (OR: 1.25, p = 0.002) were associated with the need for advanced retrieval techniques. However, in univariate and multivariate analysis filter tilt angle at the time of placement was not associated with the subsequent need for advanced retrieval technique (p = 0.16). CONCLUSION Lateral tilt at the time of placement is poorly associated with lateral tilt at the time of retrieval and does not correlate with the need for advanced retrieval technique.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

WHİTE, P., JAHANGİRİ, Y., FARSAD, K., KAUFMAN, J., HAKİM, R. A. (2021). Lateral tilt during IVC filter placement does not predict the need for advanced filter retrieval techniques. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 5, 644–648. https://ajindex.com/articles/413752

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  1. Dinglasan LA, Oh JC, Schmitt JE, Trerotola SO, Shlansky-Goldberg RD, Stavropoulos SW. Complicated inferior vena cava filter retrievals: associated factors identified at preretrieval CT. Radiology 2013
  2. 347–354. [Crossref] 2. Avgerinos ED, Bath J, Stevens J, et al. Technical and patient-related characteristics associated with challenging retrieval of inferior vena cava filters. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2013
  3. 353–359. [Crossref] 3. Al-Hakim R, Kee ST, Olinger K, Lee EW, Moriarty JM, McWilliams JP. Inferior vena cava filter retrieval: effectiveness and complications of routine and advanced techniques. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2014
  4. 933–940. [Crossref] 4. Lee SY, Lee J. Is external compression on the IVC a risk factor for IVC filter abutment? A single center experience of 141 infrarenal celect filter insertions. Eur J Radiol Open 2018
  5. 73–78. [Crossref] 5. Dowell JD, Wagner D, Elliott E, Yildiz VO, Pan X. Factors associated with advanced inferior vena cava filter removals: A single-center retrospective study of 203 patients over 7 years. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2016
  6. 218–226. [Crossref] 6. Marquess JS, Burke CT, Beecham AH, et al. Factors associated with failed retrieval of the Gunther Tulip inferior vena cava filter. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2008
  7. 1321–1327. [Crossref] 7. Shelgikar C, Mohebali J, Sarfati MR, Mueller MT, Kinikini DV, Kraiss LW. A design modification to minimize tilting of an inferior vena cava filter does not deliver a clinical benefit. J Vasc Surg 2010
  8. 920–924. [Crossref] 8. Gotra A, Doucet C, Delli Fraine P, et al. Predicting inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrievability using positional parameters: A comparative study of various filter types. Diagn Interv Imaging 2018
  9. 615–624. [Crossref] 9. Knott EM, Beacham B, Fry WR. New technique to prevent tilt during inferior vena cava filter placement. J Vasc Surg 2012
  10. 869–871. [Crossref] 10. Matsui Y, Horikawa M, Ohta K, Jahangiri Noudeh Y, Kaufman JA, Farsad K. Mechanisms of Gunther Tulip filter tilting during transfemoral placement. Diagn Interv Imaging 2017
  11. 543–549. [Crossref] 11. Singer MA, Wang SL. Modeling blood flow in a tilted inferior vena cava filter: Does tilt adversely affect hemodynamics? J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011
  12. 229–235. [Crossref] 12. Bartko JJ. Measurement and reliability: statistical thinking considerations. Schizophr Bull 1991
  13. 483–489. [Crossref] 13. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of cli