Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord ; 11(3): 587-594.e3, 2023 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36206894

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement has increased dramatically in the past two decades. However, literature supporting the efficacy of these devices has been limited and controversial. In the present study, we have evaluated the predictors and rates of technical complications after IVC filter insertion in a large national database. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative registry was explored (January 2013 to December 2020). Immediate complications were defined as venous injury requiring treatment, filter misplacement (failure to open, deployed >20 mm from intended site or in wrong vein, embolized to the heart), angulation >20°, and insertion site complications. Delayed complications were defined as migration, angulation >15°, fracture, caval and/or iliac thrombosis, filter thrombus, fragment embolization, and perforation. The Pearson χ2 test was used to compare the baseline characteristics between the patients who had developed immediate and/or delayed complications and those who had not. The predictors of these complications were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression, Cox proportional hazard regression, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: A total of 14,784 patients were included in the present analysis, with a median follow-up of 11 months (interquartile range, 4-16 months). The rate of immediate and delayed complications was 1.8% and 3.1%, respectively. Angulation (1.2%) was the most common immediate complication, and filter thrombosis (1.6%) was the most common delayed complication. Compared with the patients with no immediate complications, those with immediate complications were more likely to have had abnormal anatomy (6.0% vs 1.7%; P < .001) and a landing zone other than infrarenal (7.0% vs 4.2%; P = .02). Compared with their counterparts, those with delayed complications were less likely to have received statins (21.0% vs 29.5%; P = .006) and were more likely to have a family history of venous thromboembolism (8.0% vs 5.1%; P = .047). Logistic regression analysis revealed that renal vein visualization was associated a 50% reduction (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.92; P = .027) in the odds of immediate complications and female sex and abnormal anatomy were associated with a 41% (aOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.85; P = .013) and 244% (aOR, 3.44; 95% CI, 1.66-7.16; P < .001) increase in the odds of immediate complications, respectively. Immediate (P = .21) and delayed (P = .51) complications did not result in increased mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The immediate and delayed IVC filter complication rates were 1.8% and 3.1%, respectively, but the occurrence of complications was not associated with increased mortality. Female sex was associated with an increase in the development of immediate complications. The incidence of immediate complications might be mitigated if advanced imaging were used for renal vein visualization before IVC filter deployment. Delayed complications might be avoided if IVC filter retrieval were performed in a timely fashion and institutional retrieval protocols were optimized.


Asunto(s)
Embolia Pulmonar , Filtros de Vena Cava , Tromboembolia Venosa , Humanos , Femenino , Filtros de Vena Cava/efectos adversos , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de Tiempo , Tromboembolia Venosa/etiología , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Vena Cava Inferior/diagnóstico por imagen , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Embolia Pulmonar/etiología
2.
EJVES Vasc Forum ; 56: 24-31, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35812073

RESUMEN

Background: This article describes a rare case of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter perforation into the duodenum in a patient presenting with abdominal pain. Case report: A 55 year old woman presented with abdominal pain four years after an IVC filter placement. Workup demonstrated an IVC filter strut perforating the duodenum. The filter was removed via laparotomy, the duodenum was closed primarily, and the IVC was repaired. The patient was discharged home on post-operative day five and is doing well. Conclusions: Most extraluminal perforations of IVC filter struts are asymptomatic. Rare filter associated duodenal perforations may present with non-specific abdominal symptoms. If no other diagnosis can be attributed to the patient's presentation, direct removal of the filter and repair of the duodenum are indicated.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA