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 5/2012

01-10-2012 | Laboratory Investigation

The Optional VenaTech™ Convertible™ Vena Cava Filter: Experimental Study in Sheep

Authors: Alain F. Le Blanche, Jean-Baptiste Ricco, Michel Bonneau, Philippe Reynaud

Published in: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology | Issue 5/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Retrieval of optional caval filters may be impaired by filter tilting, migration, fracture, or embedding in the IVC wall. The goal of this experimental study was to evaluate a new optional filter, convertible by unlocking and removing the filter head.

Methods

Forty-nine Pre-Alp sheep (average weight, 55 kg) were anesthetized. IVC was catheterized via the right femoral vein (n = 46) or via the internal jugular vein (n = 3) with a 12.9-F sheath. VenaTech™ Convertible™ IVC filters were inserted as either permanent filters (n = 14) or as filters to be converted. Conversion was immediately after deployment (n = 19) or delayed after 1, 3, or 6 months (n = 20). Filter delivery, deployment, and conversion with measurement of migration and tilting were evaluated by cavography. Incorporation of the filter’s stabilizers and arms in the IVC wall was assessed by gross anatomy.

Results

Delivery system insertion, filter release, and immediate conversion were successful in all cases. Delayed conversion was completed in all but one sheep, due to insufficient snare tension. Complimentary balloon-catheter inflation was required in 12 of 20 delayed conversions to achieve filter opening. In all 49 sheep, no thrombosis, migration, or significant tilting occurred. Within 4 weeks of conversion, the filter’s stabilizers and arms were incorporated into the IVC wall. Upon removal, the filter head was free of intimal growth.

Conclusions

The VenaTech™ Convertible™ optional IVC filter was successfully implanted in all sheep with no migration or tilting. Conversion at various dates by filter head removal was feasible in all but one case.
Literature
1.
2.
Hoffmann B, Gross CR, Jöckel KH et al (2010) Trends in mortality of pulmonary embolism—an international comparison. Thromb Res 125:303–308PubMedCrossRef
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.
Decousus H, Barral FG, Buchmuller-Cordier A et al. for the PREPIC Study Group (2005) Eight-year follow-up of patients with permanent vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism. The PREPIC (Prévention du Risque d’Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) randomized study. Circulation 112:416–422
5.
Bowen FH, Anderson HM, Starbuck RW (1947) Ligation of the inferior vena cava for the prevention of pulmonary embolism; report of a case. J Fla Med Assoc 33:443–446PubMed
6.
Spencer FC, Quattlebaum JK, Quattlebaum JK Jr et al (1962) Plication of the inferior vena cava for pulmonary embolism: a report of 20 cases. Ann Surg 155:827–837PubMed
7.
Adams JT, Deweese JA (1965) Experimental and clinical evaluation of partial vein interruption in the prevention of pulmonary emboli. Surgery 57:82–102PubMed
8.
Mobin-Uddin K, Smith PE, Martinez LO et al (1967) A vena caval filter for the prevention of pulmonary embolus. Surg Forum 18:209–211
9.
Burke PE, Michna BA, Harvey CF et al (1987) Experimental comparison of percutaneous vena caval devices: titanium Greenfield filter versus bird’s nest filter. J Vasc Surg 6:66–70PubMedCrossRef
10.
Neuerburg J, Gunther RW, Rassmussen E et al (1993) A new retrievable percutaneous vena cava filter: experimental in vitro and in vivo evaluation. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 16:224–229CrossRef
11.
Onat L, Ganiyusufoglu AK, Mutlu A et al (2009) OptEase and TrapEase vena cava filters: a single-center experience in 258 patients. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 32:992–997CrossRef
12.
Le Blanche AF, Benazzouz A, Reynaud P et al. for the European VenaTechLP Vena Cava Filter Study Group (2008) The VenaTech LP permanent caval filter: effectiveness and safety in the prevention of pulmonary embolism—a European multicenter study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 19:509–515
13.
Bovyn G, Ricco JB, Reynaud P et al. for the European Tempofilter II Study Group (2006) Long-duration temporary vena cava filter: a prospective 104-case multicenter study. J Vasc Surg 43:1222–1229
14.
Mismetti P, Rivron-Guillot K, Quenet S et al (2007) A prospective long-term study of 220 patients with a retrievable vena cava filter for secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism. Chest 131:223–229PubMedCrossRef
15.
Oliva VL, Szatmari F, Giroux MF et al (2005) The Jonas study: evaluation of the retrievability of the Cordis OptEase inferior vena cava filter. J Vasc Interv Radiol 16:1439–1445PubMedCrossRef
16.
Oliva VL, Perreault P, Giroux MF et al (2008) Recovery G2 inferior vena cava filter: technical success and safety of retrieval. J Vasc Interv Radiol 19:884–889PubMedCrossRef
17.
Binkert CA, Drooz AT, Caridi JG et al (2009) Technical success and safety of retrieval of the G2 filter in a prospective, multicenter study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 20:1449–1453PubMedCrossRef
18.
Terhaar OA, Lyon SM, Given MF et al (2004) Extended interval for retrieval of Günther Tulip filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 15:1257–1262PubMedCrossRef
19.
Lyon SM, Riojas GE, Uberoi R et al (2009) Short- and long-term retrievability of the Celect vena cava filter: results from a multi-institutional registry. J Vasc Interv Radiol 20:1441–1448PubMedCrossRef
20.
Cantwell CP, Pennypacker J, Singh H et al (2009) Comparison of the recovery and G2 filter as retrievable inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 20:1193–1199PubMedCrossRef
21.
Stavropoulos SW, Dixon RG, Burke CT et al (2008) Embedded inferior vena cava filter removal: use of endobronchial forceps. J Vasc Interv Radiol 19:1297–1301PubMedCrossRef
22.
Van Ha TG, Vinokur O, Lorenz J et al (2009) Techniques used for difficult retrievals of the Günther Tulip inferior vena cava filter: experience in 32 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 20:92–99PubMedCrossRef
23.
Lynch FC (2009) Balloon-assisted removal of tilted inferior vena cava filters with embedded tips. J Vasc Interv Radiol 20:1204–1210
24.
Ray CE, Mitchell E, Zipser S et al (2006) Outcomes with retrievable inferior vena cava filters: a multicenter study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17:1595–1604PubMedCrossRef
25.
Schwindaman D (1994) Federal regulation of experimental animal use in the United States of America. Rev Sci Technol 13:247–260
26.
EEC No. 86/609 (1986) Off J Eur Communities 358:1–28
27.
Lunderquist A, Ivancev K, Wallace S et al (1995) The acquisition of skills in interventional radiology by supervised training on animal models: a three-year multicenter experience. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 18:209–211CrossRef
28.
Hoppe H, Nutting DO, Smouse R et al (2006) Günther Tulip filter retrievability multicenter study including CT follow-up: final report. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17:1017–1023PubMedCrossRef
29.
30.
Durack JC, Westphalen AC, Kekulawela S et al (2011) Perforation of the IVC: rule rather than exception after longer indwelling times for the Günther Tulip and Celect retrievable filters. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol Mar 30. doi:10.​1007/​s00270-011-0151-9
Metadata
Title
The Optional VenaTech™ Convertible™ Vena Cava Filter: Experimental Study in Sheep
Authors
Alain F. Le Blanche
Jean-Baptiste Ricco
Michel Bonneau
Philippe Reynaud
Publication date
01-10-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology / Issue 5/2012
Print ISSN: 0174-1551
Electronic ISSN: 1432-086X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-011-0273-0

Other articles of this Issue 5/2012

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology 5/2012 Go to the issue

Clinical Investigation

Endovascular Acute Stroke Treatment Performed by Vascular Interventional Radiologists: Is It Safe and Efficacious?

Clinical Investigation

Stereotactic Radiofrequency Ablation of Unresectable Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinomas: A Retrospective Study

Letter to the Editor

Thoracic Type II Endoleak Embolization Using Direct Percutaneous Puncture

Letter to the Editor

Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency in Multiple Sclerosis: Fact or Fiction!? Comment on Dr. Jim Reeker’s Reply

Clinical Investigation

Feasibility and Safety of Vascular Closure Devices in an Antegrade Approach to Either the Common Femoral Artery or the Superficial Femoral Artery

Clinical Investigation

Uterine Artery Embolization Versus Laparoscopic Uterine Artery Occlusion: The Outcomes of a Prospective, Nonrandomized Clinical Trial