ArticleCVIR endovascular2025
Managing an effective system for retrieving IVC filters: outcomes of a prospective patient database, 2012-2023.
Article in CVIR endovascular, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishment of an inferior vena cava filter retrieval program: the effect on trauma and non-trauma patient populations.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2026Article
- Facility-Level Variation Underlying Low Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval in the United States.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter outcomes with a prospectively maintained database and active patient management by interventional radiology (IR). MATERIALS &
methodsPatients with retrievable IVC filters placed by IR from 2012 to 2023 at a single, tertiary institution were tracked in a prospective registry, and follow-up was organized by a designated IR physician assistant. Patients were contacted after the filter was placed by IR and a clinic visit arranged; filter removal was scheduled when deemed appropriate. Retrospective review of filter outcomes, including retrieval, patient death, and need for permanent filtration, was performed.
resultsOver the 12-year study period, 607 retrievable IVC filters were placed: 516 Denali, 63 Eclipse, 19 Günther Tulip, and 9 Celect Platinum. In total, 43% (260) were retrieved, 12% (75) were adjudicated to be permanent, and 42% (253) died with the filter in place. The remaining 3% (19) comprised patients alive with the filter not yet retrieved at study endpoint, 42% (8/19) of which were placed in 2023. Of this cohort, 8 still needed the filter and were being monitored to determine follow-up timing, 2 needed a follow-up appointment, and 9 were lost to follow-up due to repeated no-shows and/or inability to reach the patient despite multiple attempts. Overall, 1.5% (9/607) of all filters placed were not accounted for.
conclusionThis study demonstrates high accountability (98.5%) of retrievable IVC filters when using a prospective registry actively managed by an IR PA, providing an effective and feasible model for facilitating appropriate follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.