Utility of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: A Systematic Literature Review and Analysis of the Reasons for Nonretrieval of Filters with Temporary Indications
Objective To investigate the use of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in the current practice and analyze the causes of filter left in situ despite initial plans for retrieval. Methods A systematic search of all English-language studies of retrievable IVC filters was conducted, including...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Cardiovascular and interventional radiology 2018-05, Vol.41 (5), p.675-682 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 682 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 675 |
| container_title | Cardiovascular and interventional radiology |
| container_volume | 41 |
| creator | Jia, Zhongzhi Fuller, Tyler A. McKinney, J. Mark Paz-Fumagalli, Ricardo Frey, Gregory T. Sella, David M. Van Ha, Thuong Wang, Weiping |
| description | Objective
To investigate the use of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in the current practice and analyze the causes of filter left in situ despite initial plans for retrieval.
Methods
A systematic search of all English-language studies of retrievable IVC filters was conducted, including clinical trials and observational studies published between January 1984 and March 2016.
Results
A total of 103 studies were identified, including 10 filter models in 20,319 patients. Placement indications were reported for 11,128 (54.8%) patients, including therapeutic (
n
= 6270; 56.3%) and prophylactic (
n
= 4858; 43.7%) indications. A total of 13,224 (65.1%) filters were left as permanent devices; 7095 (34.9%) filters were removed. The reasons for filter nonretrieval among the 5308 (40.1%) reported cases were primary permanent indication (21.2%; 1127/5308), death (19.4%; 1031/5308), ongoing pulmonary embolism (PE) protection (19.0%; 1011/5308), failed retrieval (13.7%; 725/5308), loss to follow-up (13.0%; 689/5308), discontinued care (4.4%; 235/5308), physician oversight (4.0%; 213/5308), patient morbidity (2.8%; 149/5308), and patient refusal (2.4%; 128/5308). A total of 7820 patients presented for filter retrieval, and 7095 filters (90.7%) were successfully removed, with a mean indwelling time of 106.6 ± 47.3 days. Breakthrough PE was reported in 2.1% (191/9169) of patients. Filter tilt, recurrent deep vein thrombosis, penetration, IVC thrombosis, migration, and fracture occurred in 7.7% (798/10,348), 7.1% (362/5092), 5.4% (379/7001), 3.9% (345/8788), 1.4% (160/11,679), and 0.5% (50/9509) of patients, respectively.
Conclusions
Approximately two-thirds of retrievable filters were not retrieved even though more than 85% of the filters were initially intended for temporary use. The major reasons for filter left in situ despite initial plans for retrieval were death, need for ongoing PE protection, failed retrieval, loss to follow-up, discontinued care, and physician oversight. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00270-018-1880-9 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1990492447</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1993310973</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-36b899014eb6fc69da87fbe9728672bd11a6b3e9bdbe31a3ae01303c53d69eae3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kVGL1DAUhYMo7rj6A3yRgC--VHOTtml8G4ZdXRgUdFd8C0l762ZpmzFJZ5n_4w81dUYRwadA7jnfyc0h5Dmw18CYfBMZ45IVDJoCmoYV6gFZQSl4wZr660OyYiDLAqoKzsiTGO8Yg6rh1WNyxpWoFC9hRX7cJDe4dKC-p58wBYd7YwekV1OPwflAv-Bk6MbsDb10Q8IQ39I1_XyICUeTXEu3Ll-aNAfM_r3De2qmjq4nMxyiiws23S4jE_0UaZ-JH_wUTknDMj9x6b1Lt_Qax50PJhzyCzrX5ohse0oe9WaI-Ox0npOby4vrzfti-_Hd1Wa9LVoheSpEbRulGJRo676tVWca2VtUkje15LYDMLUVqGxnUYARBhkIJtpKdLVCg-KcvDpyd8F_nzEmPbrY4jCYCf0cNWR6mf-tlFn68h_pnZ9D3vqXSghgSoqsgqOqDT7GgL3eBTfm7TQwvVSojxXqXKFeKtQqe16cyLMdsfvj-N1ZFvCjIObR9A3DX9H_pf4EuoepPQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1993310973</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Utility of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: A Systematic Literature Review and Analysis of the Reasons for Nonretrieval of Filters with Temporary Indications</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Jia, Zhongzhi ; Fuller, Tyler A. ; McKinney, J. Mark ; Paz-Fumagalli, Ricardo ; Frey, Gregory T. ; Sella, David M. ; Van Ha, Thuong ; Wang, Weiping</creator><creatorcontrib>Jia, Zhongzhi ; Fuller, Tyler A. ; McKinney, J. Mark ; Paz-Fumagalli, Ricardo ; Frey, Gregory T. ; Sella, David M. ; Van Ha, Thuong ; Wang, Weiping</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
To investigate the use of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in the current practice and analyze the causes of filter left in situ despite initial plans for retrieval.
Methods
A systematic search of all English-language studies of retrievable IVC filters was conducted, including clinical trials and observational studies published between January 1984 and March 2016.
Results
A total of 103 studies were identified, including 10 filter models in 20,319 patients. Placement indications were reported for 11,128 (54.8%) patients, including therapeutic (
n
= 6270; 56.3%) and prophylactic (
n
= 4858; 43.7%) indications. A total of 13,224 (65.1%) filters were left as permanent devices; 7095 (34.9%) filters were removed. The reasons for filter nonretrieval among the 5308 (40.1%) reported cases were primary permanent indication (21.2%; 1127/5308), death (19.4%; 1031/5308), ongoing pulmonary embolism (PE) protection (19.0%; 1011/5308), failed retrieval (13.7%; 725/5308), loss to follow-up (13.0%; 689/5308), discontinued care (4.4%; 235/5308), physician oversight (4.0%; 213/5308), patient morbidity (2.8%; 149/5308), and patient refusal (2.4%; 128/5308). A total of 7820 patients presented for filter retrieval, and 7095 filters (90.7%) were successfully removed, with a mean indwelling time of 106.6 ± 47.3 days. Breakthrough PE was reported in 2.1% (191/9169) of patients. Filter tilt, recurrent deep vein thrombosis, penetration, IVC thrombosis, migration, and fracture occurred in 7.7% (798/10,348), 7.1% (362/5092), 5.4% (379/7001), 3.9% (345/8788), 1.4% (160/11,679), and 0.5% (50/9509) of patients, respectively.
Conclusions
Approximately two-thirds of retrievable filters were not retrieved even though more than 85% of the filters were initially intended for temporary use. The major reasons for filter left in situ despite initial plans for retrieval were death, need for ongoing PE protection, failed retrieval, loss to follow-up, discontinued care, and physician oversight.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0174-1551</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-086X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00270-018-1880-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29359241</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Cardiology ; Clinical trials ; Device Removal - statistics & numerical data ; Embolism ; Female ; Filters ; Humans ; Imaging ; Literature reviews ; Male ; Medical research ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Migration ; Morbidity ; Nuclear Medicine ; Patients ; Pulmonary embolisms ; Radiology ; Retrieval ; Review ; Thromboembolism ; Thrombosis ; Ultrasound ; Vena Cava Filters</subject><ispartof>Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2018-05, Vol.41 (5), p.675-682</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2018</rights><rights>CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology is a copyright of Springer, (2018). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-36b899014eb6fc69da87fbe9728672bd11a6b3e9bdbe31a3ae01303c53d69eae3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-36b899014eb6fc69da87fbe9728672bd11a6b3e9bdbe31a3ae01303c53d69eae3</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/s00270-018-1880-9$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00270-018-1880-9$$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/29359241$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jia, Zhongzhi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fuller, Tyler A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKinney, J. Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paz-Fumagalli, Ricardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frey, Gregory T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sella, David M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Ha, Thuong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Weiping</creatorcontrib><title>Utility of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: A Systematic Literature Review and Analysis of the Reasons for Nonretrieval of Filters with Temporary Indications</title><title>Cardiovascular and interventional radiology</title><addtitle>Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol</addtitle><description>Objective
To investigate the use of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in the current practice and analyze the causes of filter left in situ despite initial plans for retrieval.
Methods
A systematic search of all English-language studies of retrievable IVC filters was conducted, including clinical trials and observational studies published between January 1984 and March 2016.
Results
A total of 103 studies were identified, including 10 filter models in 20,319 patients. Placement indications were reported for 11,128 (54.8%) patients, including therapeutic (
n
= 6270; 56.3%) and prophylactic (
n
= 4858; 43.7%) indications. A total of 13,224 (65.1%) filters were left as permanent devices; 7095 (34.9%) filters were removed. The reasons for filter nonretrieval among the 5308 (40.1%) reported cases were primary permanent indication (21.2%; 1127/5308), death (19.4%; 1031/5308), ongoing pulmonary embolism (PE) protection (19.0%; 1011/5308), failed retrieval (13.7%; 725/5308), loss to follow-up (13.0%; 689/5308), discontinued care (4.4%; 235/5308), physician oversight (4.0%; 213/5308), patient morbidity (2.8%; 149/5308), and patient refusal (2.4%; 128/5308). A total of 7820 patients presented for filter retrieval, and 7095 filters (90.7%) were successfully removed, with a mean indwelling time of 106.6 ± 47.3 days. Breakthrough PE was reported in 2.1% (191/9169) of patients. Filter tilt, recurrent deep vein thrombosis, penetration, IVC thrombosis, migration, and fracture occurred in 7.7% (798/10,348), 7.1% (362/5092), 5.4% (379/7001), 3.9% (345/8788), 1.4% (160/11,679), and 0.5% (50/9509) of patients, respectively.
Conclusions
Approximately two-thirds of retrievable filters were not retrieved even though more than 85% of the filters were initially intended for temporary use. The major reasons for filter left in situ despite initial plans for retrieval were death, need for ongoing PE protection, failed retrieval, loss to follow-up, discontinued care, and physician oversight.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Cardiology</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Device Removal - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Embolism</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Filters</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Migration</subject><subject>Morbidity</subject><subject>Nuclear Medicine</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pulmonary embolisms</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Retrieval</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Thromboembolism</subject><subject>Thrombosis</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><subject>Vena Cava Filters</subject><issn>0174-1551</issn><issn>1432-086X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kVGL1DAUhYMo7rj6A3yRgC--VHOTtml8G4ZdXRgUdFd8C0l762ZpmzFJZ5n_4w81dUYRwadA7jnfyc0h5Dmw18CYfBMZ45IVDJoCmoYV6gFZQSl4wZr660OyYiDLAqoKzsiTGO8Yg6rh1WNyxpWoFC9hRX7cJDe4dKC-p58wBYd7YwekV1OPwflAv-Bk6MbsDb10Q8IQ39I1_XyICUeTXEu3Ll-aNAfM_r3De2qmjq4nMxyiiws23S4jE_0UaZ-JH_wUTknDMj9x6b1Lt_Qax50PJhzyCzrX5ohse0oe9WaI-Ox0npOby4vrzfti-_Hd1Wa9LVoheSpEbRulGJRo676tVWca2VtUkje15LYDMLUVqGxnUYARBhkIJtpKdLVCg-KcvDpyd8F_nzEmPbrY4jCYCf0cNWR6mf-tlFn68h_pnZ9D3vqXSghgSoqsgqOqDT7GgL3eBTfm7TQwvVSojxXqXKFeKtQqe16cyLMdsfvj-N1ZFvCjIObR9A3DX9H_pf4EuoepPQ</recordid><startdate>20180501</startdate><enddate>20180501</enddate><creator>Jia, Zhongzhi</creator><creator>Fuller, Tyler A.</creator><creator>McKinney, J. Mark</creator><creator>Paz-Fumagalli, Ricardo</creator><creator>Frey, Gregory T.</creator><creator>Sella, David M.</creator><creator>Van Ha, Thuong</creator><creator>Wang, Weiping</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><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>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180501</creationdate><title>Utility of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: A Systematic Literature Review and Analysis of the Reasons for Nonretrieval of Filters with Temporary Indications</title><author>Jia, Zhongzhi ; Fuller, Tyler A. ; McKinney, J. Mark ; Paz-Fumagalli, Ricardo ; Frey, Gregory T. ; Sella, David M. ; Van Ha, Thuong ; Wang, Weiping</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-36b899014eb6fc69da87fbe9728672bd11a6b3e9bdbe31a3ae01303c53d69eae3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Cardiology</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Device Removal - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Embolism</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Filters</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Migration</topic><topic>Morbidity</topic><topic>Nuclear Medicine</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pulmonary embolisms</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Retrieval</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Thromboembolism</topic><topic>Thrombosis</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><topic>Vena Cava Filters</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jia, Zhongzhi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fuller, Tyler A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKinney, J. Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paz-Fumagalli, Ricardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frey, Gregory T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sella, David M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Ha, Thuong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Weiping</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><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 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>Jia, Zhongzhi</au><au>Fuller, Tyler A.</au><au>McKinney, J. Mark</au><au>Paz-Fumagalli, Ricardo</au><au>Frey, Gregory T.</au><au>Sella, David M.</au><au>Van Ha, Thuong</au><au>Wang, Weiping</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Utility of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: A Systematic Literature Review and Analysis of the Reasons for Nonretrieval of Filters with Temporary Indications</atitle><jtitle>Cardiovascular and interventional radiology</jtitle><stitle>Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol</addtitle><date>2018-05-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>675</spage><epage>682</epage><pages>675-682</pages><issn>0174-1551</issn><eissn>1432-086X</eissn><abstract>Objective
To investigate the use of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in the current practice and analyze the causes of filter left in situ despite initial plans for retrieval.
Methods
A systematic search of all English-language studies of retrievable IVC filters was conducted, including clinical trials and observational studies published between January 1984 and March 2016.
Results
A total of 103 studies were identified, including 10 filter models in 20,319 patients. Placement indications were reported for 11,128 (54.8%) patients, including therapeutic (
n
= 6270; 56.3%) and prophylactic (
n
= 4858; 43.7%) indications. A total of 13,224 (65.1%) filters were left as permanent devices; 7095 (34.9%) filters were removed. The reasons for filter nonretrieval among the 5308 (40.1%) reported cases were primary permanent indication (21.2%; 1127/5308), death (19.4%; 1031/5308), ongoing pulmonary embolism (PE) protection (19.0%; 1011/5308), failed retrieval (13.7%; 725/5308), loss to follow-up (13.0%; 689/5308), discontinued care (4.4%; 235/5308), physician oversight (4.0%; 213/5308), patient morbidity (2.8%; 149/5308), and patient refusal (2.4%; 128/5308). A total of 7820 patients presented for filter retrieval, and 7095 filters (90.7%) were successfully removed, with a mean indwelling time of 106.6 ± 47.3 days. Breakthrough PE was reported in 2.1% (191/9169) of patients. Filter tilt, recurrent deep vein thrombosis, penetration, IVC thrombosis, migration, and fracture occurred in 7.7% (798/10,348), 7.1% (362/5092), 5.4% (379/7001), 3.9% (345/8788), 1.4% (160/11,679), and 0.5% (50/9509) of patients, respectively.
Conclusions
Approximately two-thirds of retrievable filters were not retrieved even though more than 85% of the filters were initially intended for temporary use. The major reasons for filter left in situ despite initial plans for retrieval were death, need for ongoing PE protection, failed retrieval, loss to follow-up, discontinued care, and physician oversight.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>29359241</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00270-018-1880-9</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0174-1551 |
| ispartof | Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2018-05, Vol.41 (5), p.675-682 |
| issn | 0174-1551 1432-086X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1990492447 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Adult Aged Cardiology Clinical trials Device Removal - statistics & numerical data Embolism Female Filters Humans Imaging Literature reviews Male Medical research Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Migration Morbidity Nuclear Medicine Patients Pulmonary embolisms Radiology Retrieval Review Thromboembolism Thrombosis Ultrasound Vena Cava Filters |
| title | Utility of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: A Systematic Literature Review and Analysis of the Reasons for Nonretrieval of Filters with Temporary Indications |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T16%3A23%3A25IST&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=Utility%20of%20Retrievable%20Inferior%20Vena%20Cava%20Filters:%20A%20Systematic%20Literature%20Review%20and%20Analysis%20of%20the%20Reasons%20for%20Nonretrieval%20of%20Filters%20with%20Temporary%20Indications&rft.jtitle=Cardiovascular%20and%20interventional%20radiology&rft.au=Jia,%20Zhongzhi&rft.date=2018-05-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=675&rft.epage=682&rft.pages=675-682&rft.issn=0174-1551&rft.eissn=1432-086X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00270-018-1880-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1993310973%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=1993310973&rft_id=info:pmid/29359241&rfr_iscdi=true |