Home Current issue Ahead of print Search About us Editorial board Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 38  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 383-393

Vena cava filter deployment prior to percutaneous endovenous therapy for proximal lower limb deep venous thrombosis: should we routinely practice?

1 Vascular Surgery Unit, Department of General Surgery, Benha University, Benha, Egypt
2 Department of Vascular Surgery, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
MD Ahmed K Allam
Mohammed Atteiyia Mansour, Khairy Allam Building, Benha, Kalubeiyia, 13512
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ejs.ejs_151_18

Rights and Permissions

Context Anticoagulant therapy remains the prevalent treatment for venous thromboembolism. In the new era of percutaneous endovenous intervention, there is a progressive rise in the use of percutaneous endoluminal clot dissolution techniques such as using catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and mechanical aspiration thrombectomy (MAT) devices due to their established short-term benefits. Prophylactic deployment of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter during percutaneous endovenous therapy for lower extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is still a debatable issue. Aims Our study aims to assess retrospectively the frequency of embolization and the need for deployment of a retrievable IVC filter during endovenous treatment of proximal lower extremity DVT using percutaneous CDT and MAT techniques. Settings and design Retrospective. Patients and methods Percutaneous endoluminal clot dissolution using either CDT or MAT for proximal lower extremity DVT was performed on 64 limbs in 58 patients of 148 patients diagnosed with proximal acute/subacute DVT in the Vascular Surgery Department of the study hospitals. An IVC filter was deployed in 32 patients prior or during the procedure. Statistical analysis Statistical analysis was performed by using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 22, for Windows program package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA). Results From 58 patients who were treated for proximal DVT with clot debulking procedures, the IVC filter was prophylactically deployed in 30 (51.7%) patients. Trapped thrombus in the deployed filters as revealed on venocavography was observed in 8/30 (26.7%) filters deployed prophylactically with an overall rate of thrombus embolization during percutaneous endovenous thrombus dissolution techniques was 11/58 (18.9%) patients. Conclusion CDT could be done safely and effectively without routine prophylactic IVC filter placement in treating acute DVT. Selective filter placement may be considered in patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy or patients with more proximal thrombus pattern with multiple risk factors.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded54    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal