Re: Temporary IVC filtration before patent foramen ovale closure in a patient with paradoxic embolism.
S. Millward
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.0000082828.75926.F4
IF: 3.682
2003-07-01
Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
Abstract:Editor: Dr. Lewis-Carey and colleagues are to be congratulated for the timely, innovative, and successful management that they provided for the patient discussed in their recent case report (1), in which they described the use and retrieval of a Gunther Tulip filter (GTF; William Cook Europe, Bjaeverskov, Denmark). However, I have a couple of comments regarding the use and retrieval of IVC filters. First, currently available IVC filters are designed to prevent lethal pulmonary embolism and will not trap all emboli. For example, in one in vitro experiment, the GTF (as well as two other approved filters) trapped only approximately 80% of 4-mm 20-mm clots, and this trapping efficiency deteriorated further as the filter cone became partially filled with clots (2). The Bird’s Nest filter (Cook) and the nitinol filter (Nitinol Medical Technologies, Woburn, MA) trap clots more efficiently than other filters, but even these will trap only 70%–90% of 2-mm 30-mm clots in another experimental model (3). In a patient with paradoxic embolism, this could be important. Second, the authors decided to remove the filter after 7 days of implantation, immediately before percutaneous closure of the patent foramen ovale. At the time of removal, a vena cavogram demonstrated a small amount of thrombus within the apex of the filter. The authors hypothesized that this was completely removed with the filter during filter retrieval. Although this may be so, I believe that filter retrieval might have been safely delayed in this patient. This would have involved leaving the filter in place beyond the 10 days of implantation recommended by Cook. In their Discussion, the authors state that “there are reports of filter removal as long as 12 days after implantation.” To support this, they cite a reference from 1998 (4). However, in May 2002, when their paper was submitted, the data from the GTF Registry of the Canadian Interventional Radiology Association had been in print for several months (5). In this report, we described successful retrieval of a total of 52 GTFs, including six retrieved after implantation periods of longer than 14 days, with a maximum of 25 days. A few more days of anticoagulation may have resulted in physiologic thrombolysis of the trapped embolus in this case, as was seen in one of the Canadian Interventional Radiology Association Registry patients (5), as well as allowing for further stabilization of the patient’s leg vein thrombus. Delaying GTF retrieval until after closure of the patent foramen ovale would also avoid the risk of paradoxic embolism occurring as a result of inadvertent release of thrombus during retrieval. Finally, the maximum implantation period of the GTF may be even longer than 25 days: Given et al (6) presented data at the Radiological Society of North America in which they reported a mean implantation period of 40 days, with a maximum of 67 days.