Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
Published in: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology 4/2013

01-08-2013 | Clinical Investigation

Safety and Efficacy of the Gunther Tulip Retrievable Vena Cava Filter: Midterm Outcomes

Authors: Eric K. Hoffer, Rebecca J. Mueller, Marcus R. Luciano, Nicole N. Lee, Anne T. Michaels, John M. Gemery

Published in: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology | Issue 4/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate of the medium-term integrity, efficacy, and complication rate associated with the Gunther Tulip vena cava filter.

Methods

A retrospective study was performed of 369 consecutive patients who had infrarenal Gunther Tulip inferior vena cava filters placed over a 5-year period. The mean patient age was 61.8 years, and 59 % were men. Venous thromboembolic disease and a contraindication to or complication of anticoagulation were the indications for filter placement in 86 % of patients; 14 % were placed for prophylaxis in patients with a mean of 2.3 risk factors. Follow-up was obtained by review of medical and radiologic records.

Results

Mean clinical follow-up was 780 days. New or recurrent pulmonary embolus occurred in 12 patients (3.3 %). New or recurrent deep-vein thrombosis occurred in 53 patients (14.4 %). There were no symptomatic fractures, migrations, or caval perforations. Imaging follow-up in 287 patients (77.8 %) at a mean of 731 days revealed a single (0.3 %) asymptomatic fracture, migration greater than 2 cm in 36 patients (12.5 %), and no case of embolization. Of 122 patients with CT scans, asymptomatic perforations were identified in 53 patients (43.4 %) at a mean 757 days.

Conclusion

The Gunther Tulip filter was safe and effective at 2-year follow-up. Complication rates were similar to those reported for permanent inferior vena cava filters.
Literature
1.
Kearon C, Kahn SR, Agnelli G et al (2008) Antithrombotic therapy for venous thromboembolic disease: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (8th edition). Chest 133:454S–545SPubMedCrossRef
2.
Decousus H, Leizorovicz A, Parent F et al (1998) A clinical trial of vena caval filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis. Prevention du Risque d’Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave Study Group. N Engl J Med 338:409–415PubMedCrossRef
3.
Kaufman JA, Kinney TB, Streiff MB et al (2006) Guidelines for the use of retrievable and convertible vena cava filters: report from the Society of Interventional Radiology multidisciplinary consensus conference. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17:449–459PubMedCrossRef
4.
PREPIC Study Group (2005) Eight-year follow-up of patients with permanent vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism: the PREPIC (Prevention du Risque d’Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) randomized study. Circulation 112:416–422CrossRef
5.
Spencer FA, Bates SM, Goldberg RJ et al (2010) A population-based study of inferior vena cava filters in patients with acute venous thromboembolism. Arch Intern Med 170:1456–1462PubMedCrossRef
6.
Angel LF, Tapson V, Galgon RE et al (2011) Systematic review of the use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22:1522–1530PubMedCrossRef
7.
Ray CE Jr, Mitchell E, Zipser S et al (2006) Outcomes with retrievable inferior vena cava filters: a multicenter study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17:1595–1604PubMedCrossRef
8.
Sag AA, Stavas JM, Burke CT et al (2008) Analysis of tilt of the Gunther Tulip filter. J Vasc Interv Radiol 19:669–676PubMedCrossRef
9.
Keller IS, Meier C, Pfiffner R et al (2007) Clinical comparison of two optional vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 18:505–511PubMedCrossRef
10.
Hoppe H, Nutting CW, Smouse HR et al (2006) Gunther Tulip filter retrievability multicenter study including CT follow-up: final report. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17:1017–1023PubMedCrossRef
11.
Given MF, McDonald BC, Brookfield P et al (2008) Retrievable Gunther Tulip inferior vena cava filter: experience in 317 patients. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 52:452–457PubMedCrossRef
12.
Looby S, Given MF, Geoghegan T et al (2007) Gunther Tulip retrievable inferior vena caval filters: indications, efficacy, retrieval, and complications. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 30:59–65CrossRef
13.
Neuerburg JM, Gunther RW, Vorwerk D et al (1997) Results of a multicenter study of the retrievable Tulip vena cava filter: early clinical experience. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 20:10–16CrossRef
14.
Millward SF, Oliva VL, Bell SD et al (2001) Gunther Tulip retrievable vena cava filter: results from the registry of the Canadian Interventional Radiology Association. J Vasc Interv Radiol 12:1053–1058PubMedCrossRef
15.
de Gregorio MA, Laborda A, Higuera MT et al (2008) Removal of retrievable inferior vena cava filters 90 days after implantation in an ovine model: is there a time limit for removal? Arch Bronconeumol 44:591–596PubMedCrossRef
16.
Wicky S, Doenz F, Meuwly JY et al (2003) Clinical experience with retrievable Gunther Tulip vena cava filters. J Endovasc Ther 10:994–1000PubMedCrossRef
17.
Terhaar OA, Lyon SM, Given MF et al (2004) Extended interval for retrieval of Gunther Tulip filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 15:1257–1262PubMedCrossRef
18.
Ota S, Yamada N, Tsuji A et al (2008) The Gunther-Tulip retrievable IVC filter: clinical experience in 118 consecutive patients. Circ J 72:287–292PubMedCrossRef
19.
Seshadri T, Tran H, Lau KK et al (2008) Ins and outs of inferior vena cava filters in patients with venous thromboembolism: the experience at Monash Medical Centre and review of the published reports. Intern Med J 38:38–43PubMed
20.
Nicholson W, Nicholson WJ, Tolerico P et al (2010) Prevalence of fracture and fragment embolization of Bard retrievable vena cava filters and clinical implications including cardiac perforation and tamponade. Arch Intern Med 170:1827–1831PubMedCrossRef
21.
22.
Millward SF, Grassi CJ, Kinney TB et al (2009) Reporting standards for inferior vena caval filter placement and patient follow-up: supplement for temporary and retrievable/optional filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 20:S374–S376PubMedCrossRef
23.
Greenfield LJ, Rutherford RB (1999) Recommended reporting standards for vena caval filter placement and patient follow-up. Vena Caval Filter Consensus Conference. J Vasc Interv Radiol 10:1013–1019PubMedCrossRef
24.
Durack JC, Westphalen AC, Kekulawela S et al (2012) Perforation of the IVC: rule rather than exception after longer indwelling times for the Gunther Tulip and Celect retrievable filters. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 35:299–308CrossRef
25.
Athanasoulis CA, Kaufman JA, Halpern EF et al (2000) Inferior vena caval filters: review of a 26-year single-center clinical experience. Radiology 216:54–66PubMed
26.
Greenfield LJ, Proctor MC (2000) The percutaneous greenfield filter: outcomes and practice patterns. J Vasc Surg 32:888–893PubMedCrossRef
27.
Kim HS, Young MJ, Narayan AK et al (2008) A comparison of clinical outcomes with retrievable and permanent inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 19:393–399PubMedCrossRef
28.
Vijay K, Hughes JA, Burdette AS et al (2012) Fractured Bard Recovery, G2, and G2 express inferior vena cava filters: incidence, clinical consequences, and outcomes of removal attempts. J Vasc Interv Radiol 23:188–194PubMedCrossRef
29.
Tam MD, Spain J, Lieber M et al (2012) Fracture and distant migration of the Bard Recovery filter: a retrospective review of 363 implantations for potentially life-threatening complications. J Vasc Interv Radiol 23:199–205PubMedCrossRef
30.
Douketis JD, Gu CS, Schulman S et al (2007) The risk for fatal pulmonary embolism after discontinuing anticoagulant therapy for venous thromboembolism. Ann Intern Med 147:766–774PubMedCrossRef
31.
Schulman S, Lindmarker P, Holmstrom M et al (2006) Post-thrombotic syndrome, recurrence, and death 10 years after the first episode of venous thromboembolism treated with warfarin for 6 weeks or 6 months. J Thromb Haemost 4:734–742PubMedCrossRef
32.
Spencer FA, Gore JM, Lessard D et al (2008) Patient outcomes after deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: the worcester venous thromboembolism study. Arch Intern Med 168:425–430PubMedCrossRef
33.
Prandoni P, Noventa F, Ghirarduzzi A et al (2007) The risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism after discontinuing anticoagulation in patients with acute proximal deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. A prospective cohort study in 1,626 patients. Haematologica 92:199–205PubMedCrossRef
34.
Teo TK, Angle JF, Shipp JI et al (2011) Incidence and management of inferior vena cava filter thrombus detected at time of filter retrieval. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22:1514–1520PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Safety and Efficacy of the Gunther Tulip Retrievable Vena Cava Filter: Midterm Outcomes
Authors
Eric K. Hoffer
Rebecca J. Mueller
Marcus R. Luciano
Nicole N. Lee
Anne T. Michaels
John M. Gemery
Publication date
01-08-2013
Publisher
Springer New York
Published in
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology / Issue 4/2013
Print ISSN: 0174-1551
Electronic ISSN: 1432-086X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-012-0517-7

Other articles of this Issue 4/2013

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology 4/2013 Go to the issue

Technical Note

Hyaluronic Acid Gel Injection to Prevent Thermal Injury of Adjacent Gastrointestinal Tract during Percutaneous Liver Radiofrequency Ablation

Clinical Investigation

Hemophilic Chronic Synovitis: Therapy of Hemarthrosis using Endovascular Embolization of Knee and Elbow Arteries

Letter to the Editor

Diagnosis and Management of Puerperal Hematomas: Two Cases

Clinical Investigation

Lipiodol Trans-arterial Chemoembolization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Idarubicin: First Experience

Clinical Investigation

Pattern of Retained Contrast on Immediate Postprocedure Computed tomography (CT) After Particle Embolization of Liver Tumors Predicts Subsequent Treatment Response

Clinical Investigation

Radial Artery Approach to Salvage Nonmaturing Radiocephalic Arteriovenous Fistulas