Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35932376›Full record

ArticleCVIR endovascular2022

Safety and efficacy of inferior vena cava filter retrieval: a 5-year single center retrospective review from a tertiary care center.

Philip Schuchardt, Lilla Kis, Alexey Goloubev, Edward Keshishian, Rahul Mhaskar, Glenn Hoots, Cliff Davis, Kamal Massis, Jamil Shaikh

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in CVIR endovascular, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Philip SchuchardtUniversity of South Florida Department of Interventional Radiology, 2 Tampa General Circle, STC 6102, Tampa, FL, 33606-3571, USA. philipschuchardt@usf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3090-687X
Lilla KisUniversity of South Florida Department of Interventional Radiology, 2 Tampa General Circle, STC 6102, Tampa, FL, 33606-3571, USA.
Alexey GoloubevUniversity of South Florida Department of Interventional Radiology, 2 Tampa General Circle, STC 6102, Tampa, FL, 33606-3571, USA.
Edward KeshishianUniversity of South Florida Department of Interventional Radiology, 2 Tampa General Circle, STC 6102, Tampa, FL, 33606-3571, USA.
Rahul MhaskarMorsani College of Medicine Office of Research, 12901 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., MDC061, Tampa, FL, 33612-4799, USA.
Glenn HootsUniversity of South Florida Department of Interventional Radiology, 2 Tampa General Circle, STC 6102, Tampa, FL, 33606-3571, USA.
Cliff DavisUniversity of South Florida Department of Interventional Radiology, 2 Tampa General Circle, STC 6102, Tampa, FL, 33606-3571, USA.
Kamal MassisUniversity of South Florida Department of Interventional Radiology, 2 Tampa General Circle, STC 6102, Tampa, FL, 33606-3571, USA.
Jamil ShaikhUniversity of South Florida Department of Interventional Radiology, 2 Tampa General Circle, STC 6102, Tampa, FL, 33606-3571, USA.
University of South Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval is typically accomplished with standard snare technique. When this fails, more advanced techniques are necessary, especially when removal falls outside a 12-month window. Complications during filter retrieval depend heavily on technique, type of filter, and filter position. In this study we examined safety and efficacy of 536 filter retrievals at a tertiary care center and compared complication rates between standard snare and endobronchial forcep retrieval.

methodWe reviewed 536 cases between August 2015 and August 2020, recording retrieval success rates, patient comorbidities, and complication rates at the time of removal.

resultsTotal overall retrieval success was 97.9% (525/536), and complications occurred in approximately 6.0% (32/536) of all cases. Success and complications with standard snare technique alone were 99.4% (345/347) and 1.7% (5 Grade I/II, 1 Grade III) and advanced forcep technique 98.8% (171/173) and 14.5% (22 Grade I/II, 2 Grade III, and 1 Grade IV), respectively. There was no significant difference between the technical success rates of the standard snare technique and forceps techniques (p = 0.60) despite a significantly longer dwell time in patients undergoing forceps retrieval (p < 0.001).

conclusionTo our knowledge, this is the largest cohort of forceps directed IVC filter retrieval present in the literature. Rates of successful endobronchial forceps and standard snare retrievals in this study are similar to previous reports. Although use of endobronchial forceps may be associated with higher complication rates, this is likely due to prolonged dwell times, filter tilt, and attempted removal of non retrievable filters. Overall, forceps-directed retrieval offers a safe, effective means of removal in difficult cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3, Large Retrospective Study.

Indexed as

Endobronchial forcepsIVC filter leg penetrationIVC filter removalStandard loop snareTilted IVC filter

Identifiers

PMID35932376
PMCPMC9357242
OpenAlexW4290027841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.