Background: IVCFs are usually placed under fluoroscopic guidance in dedicated angiography suites. Bedside placement of inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) is possible in patients not suitable for transportation, but data regarding their use are limited. The objective of this study is to compare utilization, procedural outcomes, complications, and long-term patient outcomes associated with bedside placement of IVCFs using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and fluoroscopic placement of IVCF.
Methods: All patients receiving IVCF between January 2009 and December 2011 at a tertiary care institution were retrospectively identified. Data regarding patient characteristics, IVCF indications, complications, and outcomes were collected, and comparisons were made between patients receiving fluoroscopic-guided and IVUS-guided bedside IVCF.
Results: There were 117 bedside and 571 fluoroscopic-guided IVCF placed during this period. Patients receiving bedside IVCF were younger (50.8 vs. 60.7 years, P < 0.001), less often had malignancy (22.2% vs. 42.6%, P < 0.001), and received prophylactic filters more commonly (59.9% vs. 29.9%, P < 0.001). Placement-related complications occurred in 4.3% and 0.6%, respectively (bedside IVCF: 4 malpositions, 1 severe tilt; fluoroscopic-guided IVCF: 1 malposition, 1 severe tilt, P = 0.01). Indwelling IVCF-related complications occurred equally during median follow-up of 463 and 488 days, respectively (deep vein thrombosis: 13.7% vs. 13.3%, P = 0.92; pulmonary embolism: 5.1% vs. 4.0%, P = 0.61; filter thrombosis: 3.4% vs. 3.9%, P = 0.82). Time to indwelling complication was similar between groups (74 vs. 127 days, P = 0.29).
Conclusions: Bedside placement of IVUS-guided IVCF is safe, but with higher procedural complications when compared with fluoroscopic placement. Long-term indwelling complications are similar between IVCF placed via bedside IVUS guidance and fluoroscopic approach.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.