Günther Tulip filter retrievability multicenter study including CT follow-up: final report.

PURPOSE To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of retrieval of the Günther Tulip inferior vena cava (IVC) filter. MATERIALS AND METHODS This was a nonrandomized, single-armed, multicenter prospective investigation. Patients at temporary high risk for pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis (DVT) who did not require a permanent filter were eligible. Forty-one patients received 42 Günther Tulip filters: 22 men and 19 women with a mean age of 47.7 years. Indications for filter placement included prophylaxis, PE, and DVT. Three months after filter retrieval, contrast agent-enhanced computed tomography of the abdomen, jugular vein ultrasonography, and clinical follow-up were performed. RESULTS The filter retrieval rate was 57% (23 of 41). Günther Tulip filters were removed at a mean of 11.1 days (range, 2-14 d). The technical and clinical success rates for filter retrieval were both 100%. One placement complication and two protocol deviations occurred. These patients were excluded in terms of retrieval-related outcomes. One case of PE occurred with a filter in place, and one filter migrated to the heart. There were no acute complications caused by filter retrieval. At 3-month follow-up, there was no recurrent PE, DVT, jugular vein occlusion, or IVC stenosis or occlusion. CONCLUSION In this multicenter study, retrieval of the Günther Tulip filter was safe and without recurrent thromboembolic events or evidence of IVC or jugular vein damage at 3-month follow-up.

[1]  D. Kirsch,et al.  A modified technique to minimize filter tilting during deployment of the Günther Tulip filter: in vitro study. , 2005, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[2]  G. Soulez,et al.  The Jonas study: evaluation of the retrievability of the Cordis OptEase inferior vena cava filter. , 2005, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[3]  J. Kachura Inferior vena cava filter removal after 475-day implantation. , 2005, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[4]  Michael J. Lee,et al.  Extended interval for retrieval of Günther Tulip filters. , 2004, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[5]  P. Schnyder,et al.  Clinical Experience with Retrievable Günther Tulip Vena Cava Filters , 2003, Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists.

[6]  M. D. de Gregorio,et al.  The Günther Tulip retrievable filter: prolonged temporary filtration by repositioning within the inferior vena cava. , 2003, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[7]  J. Kaufman,et al.  A new optional vena cava filter: retrieval at 12 weeks in an animal model. , 2003, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[8]  Murray R Asch,et al.  Initial experience in humans with a new retrievable inferior vena cava filter. , 2002, Radiology.

[9]  D. Hunter,et al.  Percutaneous Retrieval of the Tulip Vena Cava Filter: Feasibility, Short- and Long-Term Changes. An Experimental Study in Dogs , 2001, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[10]  M. D. de Gregorio,et al.  Animal Experience in the Gunther Tulip Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter , 2001, Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology.

[11]  D. Valenti,et al.  Günther Tulip Retrievable Vena Cava Filter: results from the Registry of the Canadian Interventional Radiology Association. , 2001, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[12]  A. Roberts,et al.  Quality improvement guidelines for percutaneous permanent inferior vena cava filter placement for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. , 2001, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[13]  E. Halpern,et al.  Inferior vena caval filters: review of a 26-year single-center clinical experience. , 2000, Radiology.

[14]  M. Streiff Vena caval filters: a comprehensive review. , 2000, Blood.

[15]  L. Greenfield,et al.  Recommended reporting standards for vena caval filter placement and patient follow-up. , 1999, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[16]  L. Greenfield,et al.  Recommended reporting standards for vena caval filter placement and patient follow-up. , 1999, Journal of vascular surgery.

[17]  E. Ferris,et al.  Suprarenal vena caval filter placement: follow-up of four filter types in 22 patients. , 1998, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[18]  A. Dibié,et al.  In Vivo Evaluation of a Retrievable Vena Cava Filter—The Dibie-Musset Filter: Experimental Results , 1998, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[19]  R. Günther,et al.  Results of a multicenter study of the retrievable Tulip vena cava filter: Early clinical experience , 1997, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[20]  J. Kaufman Filter placement in deep venous thrombosis. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[21]  T. McCowan,et al.  Percutaneous inferior vena caval filters: follow-up of seven designs in 320 patients. , 1993, Radiology.

[22]  P. Wells,et al.  Günther Tulip filter: preliminary clinical experience with retrieval. , 2000, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[23]  B. Hillner,et al.  Current practice of temporary vena cava filter insertion: a multicenter registry. , 2000, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.