可回收腔静脉滤器在下肢骨折伴深静脉血栓患者中的应用

目的探讨下肢或盆骨骨折合并下肢深静脉血栓(DVT)患者置入可回收下腔静脉滤器预防围术期肺栓塞的价值。方法回顾性分析168例下肢或盆骨骨折合并DVT置入腔静脉滤器患者的临床资料,统计滤器回收率及血栓拦截率的情况。结果本组168例患者均成功置入滤器,并于(48.3±4.8) d(14～97 d)后取出可回收滤器;其中159例成功取出滤器,取出率为94.6%,经造影检查或取出腔静脉滤器时发现滤器上有血栓者61例,即血栓拦截率为36.3%(61/168)。结论下肢或盆骨骨折合并DVT患者置入可回收腔静脉滤器可有效拦截血栓、避免肺栓塞的发生。     

下腔静脉滤器植入术67例临床分析

目的探讨下腔静脉滤器（inferior vena cava filter,IVCF）在下肢深静脉血栓形成中预防肺栓塞的应用。方法回顾性分析67例为预防肺栓塞放置下腔静脉滤器的临床资料。结果本组65例一次植入成功,1例因血管变异改变植入入路后成功,1例因下腔静脉血栓形成放弃植入。37例（55．2％）为永久性滤器植入,30例（43．3％）为临时性滤器植入。永久性滤器患者随访32例,平均时间14．5（6—32）个月。8例患者出现不同程度近心端移位,其中1例移位显著予取出。所有放置滤器患者均无继发PE发生。未发现腔静脉继发性血栓形成。结论腔静脉滤器植入是预防肺栓塞安全、有效的方法,存在一定并发症发生风险。应尽可能留置临时性滤器以降低远期并发症发生。     

临时腔静脉滤器在下肢骨折患者中的应用

目的 探讨下肢骨折合并急性深静脉血栓形成的患者围手术期肺栓塞预防及临时性腔静脉滤器使用的必要性及安全性.方法 对782例下肢骨折患者围手术期明确诊断有急性深静脉血栓形成患者,选择其中相对年轻(年龄≤45周岁)的91例患者放置临时性腔静脉滤器预防肺栓塞,术后进行随访.结果 89例成功置入临时性腔静脉滤器,置入时间15～42 d,平均27 d,取出时拦截血栓78例,拦截率87.6%.82例(92.1%)在预期时间一次取出,7例(7.9%)拦截较大血栓经再次溶栓后二次取出.无一例更换永久性滤器,取出后随访3～6个月并行标准抗凝治疗,未发生致命性肺栓塞,32例(35.9%)患者行肺动脉CT成像(CTPA)检查,证实未发现微小肺动脉栓塞灶.结论 临时性腔静脉滤器能有效地减少下肢骨折合并急性深静脉血栓形成患者围手术期肺栓塞发病率及致死率,并能减少置放永久性滤器所致的中远期并发症.     

OptEase滤器在下肢深静脉血栓形成治疗中的应用

目的：总结8例下肢深静脉血栓形成手术治疗中使用OptEase可回收腔静脉滤器 的经验.方法：通过8例使用OptEase可回收腔静脉滤器临床资料,分析回收方式与并发症.结果：术中、术后无肺栓塞发生,回收时腔静脉造影示：滤器处不完全血栓和健侧髂静脉血栓各1例,成功回收5例,转为永久性置入3例.随访328个月,无肢体静脉血栓复发.结论：下肢深静脉血栓形成手术中使用可回收腔静脉滤器能有效防止肺栓塞,术后可回收的特点有广阔的应用前景.     

对比OptEase和Tulip两种滤器在介入治疗深静脉血栓形成中的价值

目的通过对OptEase和Tulip两种可回收滤器置入患者进行临床对比观察,评价两种滤器在预防肺栓塞（PE）的效率、可回收性及并发症等方面的差异。方法收集123例诊断明确的深静脉血栓形成（DVT）患者,按照置入滤器的种类分为OptEase滤器组及Tulip滤器组,随访13~46个月。滤器置入术后3、7天摄腹平片及静脉造影观察滤器形态、位置及附着血栓情况。术后1、3、6、12、24、36个月摄腹平片,进行下腔静脉及下肢静脉超声检查对有条件者加行静脉造影。如随访期间出现胸痛、呼吸困难等可疑PE症状,则立即行3DCT检查,明确是否发生PE。对两组各并发症发生率行χ2检验。结果两组患者滤器放置成功率100%,无术中和近期并发症。住院及随访期内均未发生新发PE,未出现滤器断裂、穿透血管壁的病例。OptEase滤器组回收成功率90.00%。Tulip滤器组回收成功率100%。未进行回收患者中,OptEase滤器组41例,3例发生下肢静脉血栓（3/41,7.32%）,1例发生下腔静脉血栓（1/41,2.44%）。Tulip滤器组43例,2例发生滤器倾斜（2/43,4.65%）,3例发生下肢静脉血栓（3/43,6.98%）,1例下腔静脉血栓（1/43,2.33%）。两组各并发症发生率差异均无统计学意义（P均〉0.05）。结论两种下腔静脉滤器在放置或回收成功、能预防PE的效率、并发症发生率方面并无明显差别。     

成功取出突入下腔静脉壁内的滤器1例

正下腔静脉滤器(inferior vena cava filter,IVCF)置入是预防因下肢深静脉血栓(deep vein thrombosis,DVT)发生肺栓塞(pulmonary embolism,PE)的主要措施。近年来,可回收滤器的出现减少了永久滤器置入所带来的并发症,但由于种种原因,即便是在短时间窗内,可回收滤器也会有难以取出的情况。以往IVCF突入下腔静脉壁内被视为取出禁忌。2019年2月,本中心成功将头端突入下腔静脉壁内的     

腔静脉直径与临时滤器植入后静脉内膜增生的相关性分析

下肢深静脉血栓形成的标准治疗是抗凝治疗,但是,当存在抗凝治疗禁忌证等情况时可行下腔静脉滤器植入预防肺栓塞发生.然而,这些情况往往是暂时性的,而植入永久滤器可能导致例如深静脉血栓复发,腔静脉损伤等并发症.因此,临时滤器特别是可植入较长时间的临时滤器成为了理想的选择.临时滤器长时间的植入导致腔静脉内膜严重增生,使滤器金属杆埋入腔静脉壁内造成取出困难甚至引起并发症[1].滤器植入后静脉内膜的增生表现为腔静脉的狭窄,南京医科大学第一附属医院2008年5月至2010年9月对34例下肢深静脉血栓患者放置了TempofilterⅡ(B.BraunCelsa,Chasseneuil,France)临时滤器,现报道如下.     

彩色超声引导下腔静脉滤器置入术30例临床分析

目的介绍超声引导下腔静脉滤器置入新方法及其对深静脉血栓形成后肺栓塞的预防作用。方法 2 0 0 2年 5月至 2 0 0 3年 7月对 30例下肢深静脉血栓形成 (其中 4例入院时出现肺栓塞 )患者在彩色超声引导下实施下腔静脉滤器置入术 ,其中 15例在滤器置入术后立即实施下肢深静脉取栓术 ,另外 15例行保守治疗。结果本组 30例均获成功 ,经 1～ 14个月平均 6个月的随访 ,除 1例出现滤器闭塞外 ,余无任何并发症及肺栓塞的发生 ,曾出现肺栓塞者滤器置入后未再发生肺栓塞。结论彩色超声引导下腔静脉滤器置入术可有效地预防深静脉血栓形成后肺栓塞的发生     

临时滤器捕捉血栓预防肺栓塞的临床观察

目的　观察下肢深静脉血栓形成患者置入的腔静脉临时滤器后捕捉血栓和预防肺栓塞的效果。方法　对确诊单侧下肢深静脉血栓形成的 5 8例患者 ,治疗前经健侧肢体置入腔静脉临时滤器 (antheortemporaryfilter,ATF)并实施手术腔内治疗和 或抗凝溶栓治疗 ,临床观察有无出现肺栓塞症状和体征。治疗后拨除临时滤器观察血栓的捕捉。结果　下腔静脉滤器置入全部成功 ,下肢深静脉血栓形成患者治疗后效果良好 ,无症状性肺栓塞发生。置入滤器平均 (1 2 . 0± 2 . 0 )d取出。临时滤器捕捉血栓患者 4 6例 ,占 79. 3%,其中 2例捕捉到大于 1cm血栓 ,经切开股静脉将滤器和血栓一并取出。结论　临时滤器预防肺栓塞安全有效 ,无远期并发症之忧 ,下肢深静脉血栓形成患者为预防肺栓塞措施置入临时滤器是有必要的。     

下腔静脉滤器在下肢深静脉血栓治疗中的应用

目的 探讨下肢深静脉血栓形成患者置人下腔静脉滤器预防肺栓塞的作用。方法 55例下肢深静脉血栓患者治疗前置人下腔静脉滤器，其中Simon Nitiol滤器(SNF)25例，Trap Ease滤器(TEF)13例，Antheor Temporal滤器(ATF)17例。10例采用抗凝溶栓治疗，45例实施手术和腔内治疗，临床观察有无出现肺栓塞症状和体症，定期透视SNF和TEF的形态与位置。结果 下腔静脉滤器置人全部成功，经治疗下肢深静脉血栓症状及体征消失．无肺栓塞发生。1例置入SNFl6个月，出现下腔静脉阻塞；17例临时性置放滤器者ATF取出后发现有血栓性物质。结论 腔静脉滤器近期预防肺动脉栓塞简便安全有效，远期并发症要引起重视，并待进一步研究。     

Role of prophylactic temporary inferior vena cava filters placed at the ICU bedside under intravascular ultrasound guidance in patients with multiple trauma

OBJECTIVE: Patients with multiple trauma often have injuries that preclude the use of anticoagulation therapy or sequential compression device prophylaxis. Temporary inferior vena cava (IVC) filters (IVCFs) offer protection against pulmonary embolism during the early immediate injury and perioperative period, when risk is highest, while averting potential long-term sequelae of permanent IVCFs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic, temporary IVCF placement at the intensive care unit bedside under real-time intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance in patients with multiple trauma. INTERVENTIONS: Ninety-four patients with multiple trauma seen between July 1, 2002, and November 1, 2003, underwent placement of OptEase (Cordis Endovascular) retrievable IVCFs under real-time IVUS guidance. Mean (+/-SD) Injury Severity Score was 25.1 +/- 2.2). Abdominal x-ray films were obtained in all patients to verify filter location. Before IVCF retrieval all patients underwent femoral vein color-flow ultrasound scanning to rule out deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and pre-procedure and post-procedure vena cavography to identify possible IVCF thrombus entrapment and post-retrieval inferior vena cava injury. RESULTS: Nineteen patients died of their injuries; no deaths were related to IVCF placement. One pulmonary embolism occurred during follow-up after filter retrieval, and 1 insertion site femoral vein DVT occurred. As verified on abdominal x-ray films, 96.8% (91 of 94) of IVCFs were placed without complications at the L2-3 level. Filter-related complications included 2 groin hematomas (2.1%) and 3 IVCFs misplaced in the right iliac vein (3.2%), early in our experience; the filters were uneventfully retrieved and replaced in the inferior vena cava within 24 hours. Thirty-one patients underwent uneventful retrieval of IVCFs after DVT or pulmonary embolism anticoagulation prophylaxis was initiated. Forty-four filters were not removed, 41 because severity of injury prevented DVT or pulmonary embolism prophylaxis and 3 because of thrombus trapped within the filter. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic, temporary IVCF placement at the intensive care unit bedside under IVUS guidance in patients with multiple trauma is simple and safe, and serves as an effective "bridge" to anticoagulation therapy until venous thromboembolism prophylaxis can be initiated. Further investigation of this bedside technique and the role of temporary IVCFs in patients with multiple trauma is warranted. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Patients with multiple trauma often have injuries that preclude the use of anticoagulation therapy or sequential compression device prophylaxis. Temporary inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) offer protection against pulmonary embolism during the perioperative and immediate injury period, when risk is highest. Ninety-four patients with multiple trauma underwent prophylactic, temporary IVCF placement at the intensive care unit bedside under real-time intravascular ultrasound. One pulmonary embolism occurred during follow-up after filter retrieval, and 1 insertion site femoral vein deep venous thrombosis occurred. Ninety-one of 94 IVCFs (96.8%) were placed without complication. Thirty-one patients underwent uneventful retrieval of IVCFs after anticoagulation prophylaxis was initiated. Forty-four filters were not removed, because of severity of injury (n = 41) or because of trapped thrombus within the filter (n = 3). Prophylactic, temporary IVCFs placed under intravascular ultrasound guidance at the bedside in patients with multiple trauma is simple, safe, and an effective bridge to anticoagulation therapy.     

Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Initial Clinical Results

Anticoagulation is the accepted therapy for patients with thromboembolic disease. When contraindications to anticoagulant therapy are present, however, interruption of the inferior vena cava (IVC) may prevent pulmonary embolism (PE). The objective of this study was to report our early technical and clinical results with retrievable IVC filters (IVCFs) for the prevention of PE. One hundred and twenty-seven multitrauma patients between December 1, 2002, and December 31, 2004, underwent placement of Gunther-Tulip (n = 49), Recovery (n = 41), or OptEase (n = 37) retrievable IVCFs under real-time intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance. All patients had abdominal X-rays to verify filter location. Prior to IVCF retrieval, all patients underwent femoral vein color flow ultrasonography to rule out deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and vena-cavography to assess the IVCF for trapped emboli, filter tilt, or retrained thrombus. Thirty-nine patients died of their injuries; no deaths were related to IVCF placement. One PE occurred during follow-up after filter retrieval, and two femoral vein insertion-site DVTs occurred. One hundred twenty (94.4%) of IVCFs were placed without complication at the L2-3 level, as verified by abdominal X-rays. Filter-related complications included three groin hematomas (2.9%) and three IVCFs misplaced in the right iliac vein early in our experience (2.3%); these filters were uneventfully retrieved and replaced in the IVC within 24 hr. Sixty-six patients underwent uneventful retrieval of IVCFs after DVT or PE anticoagulation prophylaxis was initiated. Forty-five IVCFs were not removed: 41 due to contraindications due to anticoagulation and four because of trapped thrombus within the filter. The role of retrievable IVCFs continues to evolve, but in this study of 127 patients, prophylactic temporary IVCF placement was simple and safe, prevented fatal PE, and served as an effective “bridge” to anticoagulation. Further investigation of this bedside IVUS technique and the role of temporary IVCFs in different patient populations is warranted. SECTION EDITOR: Samuel S. Ahn, MD     

Retrievable inferior vena cava filters: early clinical experience

AIM: Multiple-trauma patients often have injuries that prevent the use of anticoagulant or sequential compression device prophylaxis. Temporary inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) offer protection against pulmonary embolism (PE) during the early, highest-risk perioperative and immediate injury period, while avoiding potential long-term sequelae of a permanent IVCF. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic, temporary IVCF placement at the intensive care unit (ICU) bedside under real-time intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance in multiple-trauma patients. METHODS: One hundred and three multiple-trauma patients between July 1, 2002, and July 1, 2004, under-went placement of Günther-Tulip (n=38), Recovery (n=30) or OptEase (n=35) retrievable IVCFs under real-time IVUS guidance. The mean+/-SD injury severity score of the patients was 27.7 (+/-2.2). All patients had abdominal X-rays to verify filter location. Before IVCF retrieval, all patients underwent femoral vein color-flow ultrasonography to rule out deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pre and postprocedure vena-cavography for possible IVCF thrombus entrapment and postretrieval IVC injury. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients died of their injuries; no deaths were related to IVCF placement. One PE occurred during follow-up after filter retrieval, and 2 insertion site femoral vein DVT occurred. As verified by abdominal X-rays, 97.1% (100/103) of IVCFs were placed without complications at the L2-3 level. Filter-related complications included 3 groin hematomas (2.9%) and 3 IVCFs misplaced in the right iliac vein early in our experience; these filters were uneventfully retrieved and replaced in the IVC within 24 h. Forty-four patients underwent uneventful retrieval of IVCFs after DVT or PE anticoagulation prophylaxis was initiated. Thirty-five filters were not removed, including 32 because severity of injury prevented DVT or PE prophylaxis and 3 because of thrombus trapped with the filter. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic, temporary IVCFs placed at the ICU bedside under IVUS guidance in multiple-trauma patients serves as an effective bridge to anticoagulation until venous thromboembolism prophylaxis can be initiated. Further investigation of this bedside technique and the role of temporary IVCFs in these patients is warranted.     

下腔静脉滤器置入术98例临床分析

目的 探讨下腔静脉滤器(IVCF)应用的适应证及其并发症的预防.方法 对98例行IVCF置入术的患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析.结果 本组98例患者IVCF均一次性置人成功,其中放置永久性滤器86例,临时性滤器12例.82例(83.7%)患者获得随访,随访时间1～11个月,未出现肺栓塞(PE);3例(3.5%)放置永久性...     

复杂可回收下腔静脉滤器回收的方法和技巧：附29例分析

目的:探讨复杂可回收下腔静脉滤器回收的方法和技巧。方法:回顾性分析29例复杂滤器回收的下肢深静脉血栓形成患者资料。所有患者均先行造影了解滤器情况;对回收钩贴壁患者,分别采用猪尾管支撑技术、导丝成攀及搅拌技术、双向导丝技术、鹅颈抓捕器与成攀导丝结合技术等回收;对下腔静脉继发血栓患者,必要时再次新置滤器1枚,经溶栓、吸栓处理后,将滤器回收。结果:成功回收24例,1例患者滤器未能成功回收,4例放弃,回收率83.9%。术中无下腔静脉破裂出血、肺栓塞并发症,取出滤器完整、无折断现象。至少随访半年,下腔静脉血流通畅、无血栓形成,腹腔无明显积液。结论:导管、导丝及鹅颈抓捕器辅助,溶栓、吸栓等方法可增加复杂可回收下腔静脉滤器回收率,可减少长期留置引起相关并发症。     

Prophylactic and therapeutic inferior vena cava filters to prevent pulmonary emboli in trauma patients

HYPOTHESIS: Insertion of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) can prophylactically reduce pulmonary embolism (PE) in trauma patients. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Urban, level I trauma center. PATIENTS: Two hundred blunt trauma patients undergoing IVCF placement. INTERVENTIONS: In 122 patients who had already been diagnosed as having deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (112 patients) and/or PE (22 patients), the insertion of the IVCF was considered "therapeutic." In 78 patients who had no evidence of DVT or PE but who were considered to be at high risk for a PE, the IVCF was considered "prophylactic." MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of PE and related mortality and morbidity in therapeutic vs prophylactic IVCFs. RESULTS: The number of prophylactic IVCFs inserted increased significantly from only 4% (3/68 cases) from 1991 through 1996, up to 57% (75/132 cases) from 1997 to June 2001. Although the mean +/- SD age (51 +/- 20 years vs 41 +/- 15 years; P<.001) was higher in the therapeutic group, there was no difference in the mean +/- SD Injury Severity Scores (20 +/- 12 vs 21 +/- 11). Therapeutic filters were placed much later after injury (mean +/- SD time, 11 +/- 7 vs 3 +/- 2 days; P<.001). The mortality rate was 11% (13/122 patients) in patients having a therapeutic IVCF, as compared with only 3% (2/78 patients) in those placed prophylactically (P =.07). None of the patients who had placement of a prophylactic IVCF developed subsequent PE. The incidence of PE decreased in all blunt trauma patients from 0.29% before 1997 to 0.15% after January 1, 1997, when 57% of the IVCF inserted were prophylactic (P =.06). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic IVCFs should be inserted within 48 hours of injury in specific trauma patients at high risk for PE and with contraindications to anticoagulation.     

Aegisy可回收腔静脉滤器在创伤外科的临床应用

目的:评价可回收腔静脉滤器在创伤外科预防肺动脉栓塞的安全性和有效性。方法:108例创伤外科病人因下肢深静脉血栓形成而在外科手术前置入可回收下腔静脉滤器,滤器置入后完成骨科手术,手术后次日给予抗凝溶栓药物治疗,每2天复查血D-二聚体浓度,每周复查1次双下肢静脉超声,至下肢静脉无新鲜血栓形成或D-二聚体浓度正常后取出下腔静脉滤器。结果:108例病人的滤器均成功植入预定位置,平均留置时间为11.5(6～21d),期间无一例肺栓塞发生,无滤器闭塞,最迟在21d内全部滤器均成功取出,62例(57.4%)病人在滤器上发现血栓捕获。结论:该观察表明可回收下腔静脉滤器在预防肺动脉栓塞方面是安全有效的,而且全部可安全取出。     

Real-time intravascular ultrasound-guided placement of a removable inferior vena cava filter

BACKGROUND: Reports have demonstrated the benefit of prophylactic inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) placement to prevent pulmonary embolism. This series evaluates the potential for the bedside placement of a removable IVCF under "real-time" intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance. METHODS: Twenty trauma patients underwent intensive care unit placement of a removable IVCF with IVUS guidance. All patients had ultrasonography of the femoral veins after placement to rule out postprocedure femoral vein thrombosis and radiographs to identify filter location. RESULTS: Nineteen of 20 IVCFs were placed at approximately the L2 level as verified by radiography. One patient had a large IVC (34 mm) and underwent bilateral common iliac IVCF placement under IVUS. Within 3 weeks of placement, 12 IVCFs were retrieved. Of the remaining eight patients, six had indications for permanent implantation, two had contralateral deep venous thrombosis, and one had ipsilateral deep venous thrombosis. CONCLUSION: Bedside insertion of a removable IVCF with IVUS guidance and its removal are simple, safe, and accurate.     

Experience of temporary inferior vena cava filters inserted in the perinatal period to prevent pulmonary embolism in pregnant women with deep vein thrombosis

OBJECTIVE: We placed temporary inferior vena cava filters to prevent pulmonary thromboembolism in patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) who were presumed to have an increased risk of pulmonary embolism in the perinatal period. These experiences of using temporary inferior vena cava filters in pregnant women are reported. METHODS: We reviewed 11 patients with DVT who underwent placement of a temporary inferior vena cava filter and delivered in our hospital between 1998 and 2004. All of the filters were placed at the suprarenal inferior vena cava before delivery. During filter placement, anticoagulant therapy was routinely performed, and we stopped the administration of anticoagulant agents intrapartum. RESULTS: No complications occurred at filter insertion or during placement. No symptomatic pulmonary thromboembolism occurred during or after delivery. All of the filters were successfully removed, one of which was exchanged for a permanent filter because the temporary filter captured a large thrombus. CONCLUSION: Intrapartum temporary inferior vena cava filters may reduce the incidence of pulmonary thromboembolism in pregnancy with DVT. Temporary inferior vena cava filters appear to be safe for pregnant women.