To assess whether the introduction of removable inferior vena cava filters (VCF) has led to variations in the number of implants, indications, and immediate complications in our hospital.
The study included consecutive patients (n = 88, mean age 68 years, males 46 % ) with DVT (n = 27, 30.7 % ), PE (n = 22, 25 % ) or both (n = 39, 44.3 % ) who had a VCF implanted by vascular surgeons between 1996-2011. Since 2004 all VCF were potentially removable (OptEase / Cordis). Indications DVT / PE recurrent / progressive with proper anticoagulation (n = 22, 25 % ), DVT / PE with contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 47, 53.4 % ), or removal of anticoagulation after DVT / PE for major surgery (n = 19, 21.6 % ).
A total of 88 VCF were implanted: 33 permanent (20 Venatech-LGM/Braun, 13 Trapesase / Cordis), and 55 removable (OptEase / Cordis). Since the introduction of removable VCF, the number of implants increased by 40 % , indications for anticoagulation after withdrawal of DVT / PE for major surgery increased (P = .001) and the indications for DVT / PE recurrent / progressive (P < .001) decreased. Thirty-one (65 % ) of supposedly temporary VCF (n = 48) were not removed. Removal was more likely if implanted in surgery (P < .001) and less if it was for DVT / PE recurrent / progressive (P < .06). There were no immediate complications associated with the procedure.
The availability of removable FVC has resulted in a higher number of implants, especially in patients with DVT / PE where anticoagulation should be discontinued for major surgery, and probably before that it was delayed until after the acute phase of PE / DVT. Although removable VCF are equally safe in the short term, a significant percentage of those with suspected temporary indications are eventually withdrawn, so its iindication should not be widened.