Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015 Jun;26(6):865-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2015.01.022. Epub 2015 Mar 17.

A Comparison of Retrievability: Celect versus Option Filter.

Author information

  • 1Division of Interventional Radiology, University of Colorado, 12401 E. 17th Avenue, Mail Stop L954, Room 526, Denver, CO 80045. Electronic address: robert.ryu@ucdenver.edu.
  • 2Department of Radiology (K.D., J.K., R.G., A.E.E., S.R., R.S., R.J.L.), Section of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To compare the retrievability of 2 potentially retrievable inferior vena cava filter devices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

A retrospective, institutional review board-approved study of Celect (Cook, Inc, Bloomington, Indiana) and Option (Rex Medical, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania) filters was conducted over a 33-month period at a single institution. Fluoroscopy time, significant filter tilt, use of adjunctive retrieval technique, and strut perforation in the inferior vena cava were recorded on retrieval. Fisher exact test and Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test were used for comparison.

RESULTS:

There were 99 Celect and 86 Option filters deployed. After an average of 2.09 months (range, 0.3-7.6 mo) and 1.94 months (range, 0.47-9.13 mo), respectively, 59% (n = 58) of patients with Celect filters and 74.7% (n = 65) of patients with Option filters presented for filter retrieval. Retrieval failure rates were 3.4% for Celect filters versus 7.7% for Option filters (P = .45). Median fluoroscopy retrieval times were 4.25 minutes for Celect filters versus 6 minutes for Option filters (P = .006). Adjunctive retrieval techniques were used in 5.4% of Celect filter retrievals versus 18.3% of Option filter retrievals (P = .045). The incidence of significant tilting was 8.9% for Celect filters versus 16.7% for Option filters (P = .27). The incidence of strut perforation was 43% for Celect filters versus 0% for Option filters (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS:

Retrieval rates for the Celect and Option filters were not significantly different. However, retrieval of the Option filter required a significantly increased amount of fluoroscopy time compared with the Celect filter, and there was a significantly greater usage of adjunctive retrieval techniques for the Option filter. The Celect filter had a significantly higher rate of strut perforation.

Copyright © 2015 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PMID:
25791334
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk