Denali, Tulip, and Option Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval: A Single Center Experience
Purpose To compare the technical success of filter retrieval in Denali, Tulip, and Option inferior vena cava filters. Materials and Methods A retrospective analysis of Denali, Gunther Tulip, and Option IVC filters was conducted. Retrieval failure rates, fluoroscopy time, sedation time, use of advanc...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Cardiovascular and interventional radiology 2018-04, Vol.41 (4), p.572-577 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 577 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 572 |
| container_title | Cardiovascular and interventional radiology |
| container_volume | 41 |
| creator | Ramaswamy, Raja S. Jun, Emily van Beek, Darren Mani, Naganathan Salter, Amber Kim, Seung K. Akinwande, Olaguoke |
| description | Purpose
To compare the technical success of filter retrieval in Denali, Tulip, and Option inferior vena cava filters.
Materials and Methods
A retrospective analysis of Denali, Gunther Tulip, and Option IVC filters was conducted. Retrieval failure rates, fluoroscopy time, sedation time, use of advanced retrieval techniques, and filter-related complications that led to retrieval failure were recorded.
Results
There were 107 Denali, 43 Option, and 39 Tulip filters deployed and removed with average dwell times of 93.5, 86.0, and 131 days, respectively. Retrieval failure rates were 0.9% for Denali, 11.6% for Option, and 5.1% for Tulip filters (Denali vs. Option
p
= 0.018; Denali vs. Tulip
p
= 0.159; Tulip vs. Option
p
= 0.045). Median fluoroscopy time for filter retrieval was 3.2 min for the Denali filter, 6.75 min for the Option filter, and 4.95 min for the Tulip filter (Denali vs. Option
p
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00270-017-1866-z |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1979173202</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1979173202</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-1f766f2386f7efc723f44556adae362c0cc109fc5501ba777faba71d011685a33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1rFTEUhoMo9lr9AW4k4MZFR89JJslcd-XaLygUtIquQpp7UlLmZqbJTNH-enO9VURwdRbv874hD2MvEd4igHlXAISBBtA02Gnd3D9iC2ylaKDTXx-zRQ3aBpXCPfaslBsAVJ1QT9meWAoNEtoF-_aBkuvjAb-c-zgecJfW_GKc4pD4WQqU45D5l4rwlbtz_Dj2E2X-kaYc6c717_kh_xTTdU98RWkbHX0fa4mSp-fsSXB9oRcPd599Pj66XJ025xcnZ6vD88ZLI6YGg9E6CNnpYCh4I2RoW6W0WzuSWnjwHmEZvFKAV84YE1w9uAZE3Skn5T57s9sd83A7U5nsJhZPfe8SDXOxuDRLNFKAqOjrf9CbYc71_7-oTolKbincUT4PpWQKdsxx4_IPi2C33u3Ou6167da7va-dVw_L89WG1n8av0VXQOyAUqN0Tfmvp_-7-hNv1ov0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1978527912</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Denali, Tulip, and Option Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval: A Single Center Experience</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Ramaswamy, Raja S. ; Jun, Emily ; van Beek, Darren ; Mani, Naganathan ; Salter, Amber ; Kim, Seung K. ; Akinwande, Olaguoke</creator><creatorcontrib>Ramaswamy, Raja S. ; Jun, Emily ; van Beek, Darren ; Mani, Naganathan ; Salter, Amber ; Kim, Seung K. ; Akinwande, Olaguoke</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
To compare the technical success of filter retrieval in Denali, Tulip, and Option inferior vena cava filters.
Materials and Methods
A retrospective analysis of Denali, Gunther Tulip, and Option IVC filters was conducted. Retrieval failure rates, fluoroscopy time, sedation time, use of advanced retrieval techniques, and filter-related complications that led to retrieval failure were recorded.
Results
There were 107 Denali, 43 Option, and 39 Tulip filters deployed and removed with average dwell times of 93.5, 86.0, and 131 days, respectively. Retrieval failure rates were 0.9% for Denali, 11.6% for Option, and 5.1% for Tulip filters (Denali vs. Option
p
= 0.018; Denali vs. Tulip
p
= 0.159; Tulip vs. Option
p
= 0.045). Median fluoroscopy time for filter retrieval was 3.2 min for the Denali filter, 6.75 min for the Option filter, and 4.95 min for the Tulip filter (Denali vs. Option
p
< 0.01; Denali vs. Tulip
p
< 0.01; Tulip vs. Option
p
= 0.67). Advanced retrieval techniques were used in 0.9% of Denali filters, 21.1% in Option filters, and 10.8% in Tulip filters (Denali vs. Option
p
< 0.01; Denali vs. Tulip
p
< 0.01; Tulip vs. Option
p
< 0.01).
Discussion
Filter retrieval failure rates were significantly higher for the Option filter when compared to both the Denali and Tulip filters. Retrieval of the Denali filter required significantly less amount of fluoroscopy time and use of advanced retrieval techniques when compared to both the Option and Tulip filters. The findings of this study indicate easier retrieval of the Denali and Tulip IVC filters when compared to the Option filter.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0174-1551</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-086X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00270-017-1866-z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29260304</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Cardiology ; Clinical Investigation ; Complications ; Coronary vessels ; Failure rates ; Filters ; Fluoroscopy ; Imaging ; Medical equipment ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Nuclear Medicine ; Pulmonary embolisms ; Radiology ; Retrieval ; Transplants & implants ; Ultrasound ; Vascular surgery</subject><ispartof>Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2018-04, Vol.41 (4), p.572-577</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2017</rights><rights>CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology is a copyright of Springer, (2017). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-1f766f2386f7efc723f44556adae362c0cc109fc5501ba777faba71d011685a33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-1f766f2386f7efc723f44556adae362c0cc109fc5501ba777faba71d011685a33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00270-017-1866-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00270-017-1866-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29260304$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ramaswamy, Raja S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jun, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Beek, Darren</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mani, Naganathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salter, Amber</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Seung K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akinwande, Olaguoke</creatorcontrib><title>Denali, Tulip, and Option Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval: A Single Center Experience</title><title>Cardiovascular and interventional radiology</title><addtitle>Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol</addtitle><description>Purpose
To compare the technical success of filter retrieval in Denali, Tulip, and Option inferior vena cava filters.
Materials and Methods
A retrospective analysis of Denali, Gunther Tulip, and Option IVC filters was conducted. Retrieval failure rates, fluoroscopy time, sedation time, use of advanced retrieval techniques, and filter-related complications that led to retrieval failure were recorded.
Results
There were 107 Denali, 43 Option, and 39 Tulip filters deployed and removed with average dwell times of 93.5, 86.0, and 131 days, respectively. Retrieval failure rates were 0.9% for Denali, 11.6% for Option, and 5.1% for Tulip filters (Denali vs. Option
p
= 0.018; Denali vs. Tulip
p
= 0.159; Tulip vs. Option
p
= 0.045). Median fluoroscopy time for filter retrieval was 3.2 min for the Denali filter, 6.75 min for the Option filter, and 4.95 min for the Tulip filter (Denali vs. Option
p
< 0.01; Denali vs. Tulip
p
< 0.01; Tulip vs. Option
p
= 0.67). Advanced retrieval techniques were used in 0.9% of Denali filters, 21.1% in Option filters, and 10.8% in Tulip filters (Denali vs. Option
p
< 0.01; Denali vs. Tulip
p
< 0.01; Tulip vs. Option
p
< 0.01).
Discussion
Filter retrieval failure rates were significantly higher for the Option filter when compared to both the Denali and Tulip filters. Retrieval of the Denali filter required significantly less amount of fluoroscopy time and use of advanced retrieval techniques when compared to both the Option and Tulip filters. The findings of this study indicate easier retrieval of the Denali and Tulip IVC filters when compared to the Option filter.</description><subject>Cardiology</subject><subject>Clinical Investigation</subject><subject>Complications</subject><subject>Coronary vessels</subject><subject>Failure rates</subject><subject>Filters</subject><subject>Fluoroscopy</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Medical equipment</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Nuclear Medicine</subject><subject>Pulmonary embolisms</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Retrieval</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><subject>Vascular surgery</subject><issn>0174-1551</issn><issn>1432-086X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1rFTEUhoMo9lr9AW4k4MZFR89JJslcd-XaLygUtIquQpp7UlLmZqbJTNH-enO9VURwdRbv874hD2MvEd4igHlXAISBBtA02Gnd3D9iC2ylaKDTXx-zRQ3aBpXCPfaslBsAVJ1QT9meWAoNEtoF-_aBkuvjAb-c-zgecJfW_GKc4pD4WQqU45D5l4rwlbtz_Dj2E2X-kaYc6c717_kh_xTTdU98RWkbHX0fa4mSp-fsSXB9oRcPd599Pj66XJ025xcnZ6vD88ZLI6YGg9E6CNnpYCh4I2RoW6W0WzuSWnjwHmEZvFKAV84YE1w9uAZE3Skn5T57s9sd83A7U5nsJhZPfe8SDXOxuDRLNFKAqOjrf9CbYc71_7-oTolKbincUT4PpWQKdsxx4_IPi2C33u3Ou6167da7va-dVw_L89WG1n8av0VXQOyAUqN0Tfmvp_-7-hNv1ov0</recordid><startdate>20180401</startdate><enddate>20180401</enddate><creator>Ramaswamy, Raja S.</creator><creator>Jun, Emily</creator><creator>van Beek, Darren</creator><creator>Mani, Naganathan</creator><creator>Salter, Amber</creator><creator>Kim, Seung K.</creator><creator>Akinwande, Olaguoke</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180401</creationdate><title>Denali, Tulip, and Option Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval: A Single Center Experience</title><author>Ramaswamy, Raja S. ; Jun, Emily ; van Beek, Darren ; Mani, Naganathan ; Salter, Amber ; Kim, Seung K. ; Akinwande, Olaguoke</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-1f766f2386f7efc723f44556adae362c0cc109fc5501ba777faba71d011685a33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Cardiology</topic><topic>Clinical Investigation</topic><topic>Complications</topic><topic>Coronary vessels</topic><topic>Failure rates</topic><topic>Filters</topic><topic>Fluoroscopy</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Medical equipment</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Nuclear Medicine</topic><topic>Pulmonary embolisms</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Retrieval</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><topic>Vascular surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ramaswamy, Raja S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jun, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Beek, Darren</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mani, Naganathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salter, Amber</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Seung K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akinwande, Olaguoke</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health & Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Cardiovascular and interventional radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ramaswamy, Raja S.</au><au>Jun, Emily</au><au>van Beek, Darren</au><au>Mani, Naganathan</au><au>Salter, Amber</au><au>Kim, Seung K.</au><au>Akinwande, Olaguoke</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Denali, Tulip, and Option Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval: A Single Center Experience</atitle><jtitle>Cardiovascular and interventional radiology</jtitle><stitle>Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol</addtitle><date>2018-04-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>572</spage><epage>577</epage><pages>572-577</pages><issn>0174-1551</issn><eissn>1432-086X</eissn><abstract>Purpose
To compare the technical success of filter retrieval in Denali, Tulip, and Option inferior vena cava filters.
Materials and Methods
A retrospective analysis of Denali, Gunther Tulip, and Option IVC filters was conducted. Retrieval failure rates, fluoroscopy time, sedation time, use of advanced retrieval techniques, and filter-related complications that led to retrieval failure were recorded.
Results
There were 107 Denali, 43 Option, and 39 Tulip filters deployed and removed with average dwell times of 93.5, 86.0, and 131 days, respectively. Retrieval failure rates were 0.9% for Denali, 11.6% for Option, and 5.1% for Tulip filters (Denali vs. Option
p
= 0.018; Denali vs. Tulip
p
= 0.159; Tulip vs. Option
p
= 0.045). Median fluoroscopy time for filter retrieval was 3.2 min for the Denali filter, 6.75 min for the Option filter, and 4.95 min for the Tulip filter (Denali vs. Option
p
< 0.01; Denali vs. Tulip
p
< 0.01; Tulip vs. Option
p
= 0.67). Advanced retrieval techniques were used in 0.9% of Denali filters, 21.1% in Option filters, and 10.8% in Tulip filters (Denali vs. Option
p
< 0.01; Denali vs. Tulip
p
< 0.01; Tulip vs. Option
p
< 0.01).
Discussion
Filter retrieval failure rates were significantly higher for the Option filter when compared to both the Denali and Tulip filters. Retrieval of the Denali filter required significantly less amount of fluoroscopy time and use of advanced retrieval techniques when compared to both the Option and Tulip filters. The findings of this study indicate easier retrieval of the Denali and Tulip IVC filters when compared to the Option filter.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>29260304</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00270-017-1866-z</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0174-1551 |
| ispartof | Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2018-04, Vol.41 (4), p.572-577 |
| issn | 0174-1551 1432-086X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1979173202 |
| source | Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Cardiology Clinical Investigation Complications Coronary vessels Failure rates Filters Fluoroscopy Imaging Medical equipment Medicine Medicine & Public Health Nuclear Medicine Pulmonary embolisms Radiology Retrieval Transplants & implants Ultrasound Vascular surgery |
| title | Denali, Tulip, and Option Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval: A Single Center Experience |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-19T00%3A37%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Denali,%20Tulip,%20and%20Option%20Inferior%20Vena%20Cava%20Filter%20Retrieval:%20A%20Single%20Center%20Experience&rft.jtitle=Cardiovascular%20and%20interventional%20radiology&rft.au=Ramaswamy,%20Raja%20S.&rft.date=2018-04-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=572&rft.epage=577&rft.pages=572-577&rft.issn=0174-1551&rft.eissn=1432-086X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00270-017-1866-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1979173202%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1978527912&rft_id=info:pmid/29260304&rfr_iscdi=true |