RESUMEN

Background: Inferior vena cava filters are typically retrieved using endovascular procedures. However, in cases where complications related to the filter arise or when endovascular retrieval becomes challenging, open surgery could be considered. Case presentation: A 65-year-old woman underwent inferior vena cava filter placement surgery for progressive venous thrombosis embolism (VTE). Following an unsuccessful endovascular retrieval attempt at an external hospital two months later, she experienced abdominal pain and was transferred to our facility for further treatment. Examination revealed that she was encountered a complication where the inferior vena cava filter penetrated both the vena cava and the duodenum post-implantation. But fortunately, the patient's blood test results were within normal range. Ultimately, our institution successfully removed the filter through open surgery and the patient was discharged without any complications. Conclusions: This case, along with our literature review, illustrates the viability and safety of duodenal-penetrated filter removal via open surgery, resulting in favorable outcomes and a promising prognosis for the patient.

RESUMEN

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a feared complication of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) that can lead to respiratory distress and even death. The mainstay of preventing PE is anticoagulation, but other strategies exist. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are an alternative strategy for PE prophylaxis in individuals who may have contraindications to receiving anticoagulation. Although the placement of an IVC filter is a minimally invasive and typically uncomplicated procedure, all procedures have their risks. We present a case of a 35-year-old woman who experienced a rare complication of IVC filter placement and suffered a retroperitoneal hemorrhage. The patient underwent placement of an IVC filter for PE prophylaxis before a scheduled sleeve gastrectomy. Hours after placement, she returned with new symptoms and signs of blood loss. She was found to have a retroperitoneal hematoma due to bleeding from a lumbar artery that was penetrated by a strut of the filter. Arterial hemorrhage from a lumbar artery is a rare complication of IVC filter placement, and it can result in poor outcomes for the patient. We aim to increase awareness of this rare but dangerous complication to improve recognition and patient outcomes in cases of delayed arterial hemorrhage following IVC filter placement.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION:  Anticoagulation is the mainstay of management for patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are indicated in select patients who are not candidates for anticoagulation. There is a lack of quality evidence supporting other indications. In addition, long-term benefits and safety profiles of IVC filters have not been established. We investigated the utilization practice of IVC filters in a contemporary series of patients in a tertiary academic medical center. METHODOLOGY:  A retrospective review of 200 patients who received IVC filters at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) Medical Center in the years 2017 and 2018 was conducted. Adult patients 18 years of age or older with or without cancer were included, and patients were selected consecutively until data on 200 patients were collected. Data on patient demographics, an indication of IVC filter placement, filter retrieval rate, and re-thrombosis events over a median follow-up period of nine months were extracted from the electronic medical record and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients (105 male and 95 female) were included with a median age of 61 years (range 17-92 years). Of the 200 patients, 97 (48.5%) had a DVT, 28 (14%) had a PE, 73 (36.5%) had both a PE and DVT, and 2 (1%) had thrombosis at other sites. A total of 130 (65%) patients had an IVC filter placed because of a contraindication to anticoagulation, while 70 (35%) had an IVC filter placed for other nonstandard indications, which included new or worsening VTE despite anticoagulation, recent VTE who must have anticoagulation held during surgery, primary prevention in high-risk patients, and extensive disease burden among other reasons. Seventy-two (36%) patients had active malignancy at the time of filter placement, and 64 (32%) were lost to follow-up. Of the 119 patients who were potentially eligible for filter retrieval, 55 (46%) patients had their IVC filters removed at a median of five months after insertion. Of the 55 patients who had IVC filters removed, 8 (14.5%) patients experienced a re-thrombosis event within a median follow-up of 39 months. Of the 145 patients who still had their filter in place at the time of death or last follow-up, 5 (3.4%) patients experienced a re-thrombosis event within a median follow-up of three months. CONCLUSIONS:  One-third of the patients in this series had an IVC filter placed without a standard indication, and less than half of them had the IVC filters removed within one year of placement. Additionally, one-third of the patients were lost to follow-up, highlighting the need for improved structured follow-up programs and education among both patients and providers regarding the indications for placement and retrieval to minimize complications.

RESUMEN

Thrombotic events are well-known complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) are devices used to prevent pulmonary embolism (PE) and also increase the risk of thrombotic complications. Here, we describe the case of a 38-year-old female with extensive bilateral lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and thrombosis of the infrarenal inferior vena cava (IVC) in the setting of an IVCF and symptomatic COVID-19. The IVCF had been placed a few months prior for a left femoral DVT and PE after spinal surgery. This patient was treated with pharmacomechanical thrombectomy and ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis followed by angioplasty and anticoagulation. The IVCF was retrieved after confirming there was no residual DVT when the patient recovered from COVID-19 infection. This case of a rare combination of IVCF-related thrombosis secondary to COVID-19 highlights the potential pitfalls of IVCF in this situation.

RESUMEN

The use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters has been increasingly prevalent. Although they are relatively safe with clear indications, they are not without complications. Late-onset complications include IVC filter migration, IVC wire fracture, wire strut penetration, and perforation of organs in its vicinity. In this report, we present the case of a patient with small bowel volvulus secondary to an IVC wire strut migration, causing tethering of the mesentery and vascular compromise to the small bowel.

RESUMEN

Duodenal penetration is a late complication associated with the placement of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. In this case report, we are presenting a case of asymptomatic duodenal penetration by IVC filter that was managed conservatively.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The use of Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filters is increasing for patients who cannot otherwise receive anticoagulation for a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). In this case, a 60-year-old man presenting with abdominal pain was found to have migration of his IVC filter into his intrahepatic IVC. Interventional radiology (IR) and vascular surgery were consulted as the migrated IVC filter was felt to be the likely cause of the patient's pain. Consideration was given to transferring the patient to a liver transplant center to retrieve the migrated filter. When patients with a history of IVC filter placement present to the emergency department, a high index of suspicion for IVC filter complication should be maintained and there should be a low threshold for ordering CT imaging. If a severe IVC filter complication is discovered, patients may ultimately require transfer to a center with hepatic surgery capability for definitive treatment given the complex vasculature involved.

RESUMEN

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters provide a safe and effective method for protecting against pulmonary embolisms in patients for whom standard anticoagulation therapy for acute deep vein thrombosis is contraindicated. Common complications of IVC filter placement include erosion through the wall of the vena cava, visceral perforation, and filter thrombosis, obstruction, and migration. In this report, we describe the case of a 60-year-old woman who presented with an IVC filter fracture and subsequent migration of the filter to the lung detected via chest radiography.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism can be a significant cause of morbidity in the trauma population. Medical and surgical specialties have been pushing the indication for prophylactic filter placement. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 36-year-old man presented with axial lower back pain with a radicular right L2 component after lifting a heavy object. He had a history of penetrating brain trauma 3 years prior, with placement of a prophylactic inferior vena cava filter. His radiograph, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine showed fracture of his filter, with migration of the fractured fragment through the inferior vena cava and into the L2-L3 disk space, and surrounding bony lysis and severe osteodiskitis. He was treated medically with intravenous and then oral antibiotics and improved clinically and radiographically. CONCLUSIONS: Conservative use of filter devices and early retrieval once their indication expires are paramount to avoid unnecessary complications.

Asunto(s)