对比OptEase和Tulip两种滤器在介入治疗深静脉血栓形成中的价值

目的通过对OptEase和Tulip两种可回收滤器置入患者进行临床对比观察,评价两种滤器在预防肺栓塞（PE）的效率、可回收性及并发症等方面的差异。方法收集123例诊断明确的深静脉血栓形成（DVT）患者,按照置入滤器的种类分为OptEase滤器组及Tulip滤器组,随访13~46个月。滤器置入术后3、7天摄腹平片及静脉造影观察滤器形态、位置及附着血栓情况。术后1、3、6、12、24、36个月摄腹平片,进行下腔静脉及下肢静脉超声检查对有条件者加行静脉造影。如随访期间出现胸痛、呼吸困难等可疑PE症状,则立即行3DCT检查,明确是否发生PE。对两组各并发症发生率行χ2检验。结果两组患者滤器放置成功率100%,无术中和近期并发症。住院及随访期内均未发生新发PE,未出现滤器断裂、穿透血管壁的病例。OptEase滤器组回收成功率90.00%。Tulip滤器组回收成功率100%。未进行回收患者中,OptEase滤器组41例,3例发生下肢静脉血栓（3/41,7.32%）,1例发生下腔静脉血栓（1/41,2.44%）。Tulip滤器组43例,2例发生滤器倾斜（2/43,4.65%）,3例发生下肢静脉血栓（3/43,6.98%）,1例下腔静脉血栓（1/43,2.33%）。两组各并发症发生率差异均无统计学意义（P均〉0.05）。结论两种下腔静脉滤器在放置或回收成功、能预防PE的效率、并发症发生率方面并无明显差别。     

OptEase可回收型滤器在DVT介入治疗中的应用

目的评价Optease可回收型滤器防止肺栓塞作用及其安全性、可回收性。方法42例下肢深静脉血栓患者(合并肺栓塞17例),男25例,女17例,年龄22~60岁(平均44岁)。40例经股静脉路径置入Optease滤器于肾下水平下腔静脉,2例因血栓累及下腔静脉近肾静脉开口,经右颈静脉路径置入到肾静脉以上段下腔静脉。置入后,行下肢静脉及肺动脉导管溶栓治疗。术后6例患者取出滤器。结果Optease滤器释放时均无明显前跳和回缩现象发生,定位良好。介入治疗及造影复查过程中,滤器均无移位。患者均无肺动脉栓塞症状加重及新的肺动脉栓塞发生。6例下肢静脉血栓完全消失及年龄较轻患者(22~40岁),于滤器置入后7~12天内,经股静脉路径,采用Gooseneck捕捉器将滤器取出。回收的滤器均完整,无血栓附着。结论Optease可回收型滤器可有效地防止肺栓塞的发生;Optease滤器置入安全、定位准确,可经股静脉路径完好地进行回收。     

下腔静脉滤器预防肺栓塞及其并发症

目的探讨放置下腔静脉滤器在预防下肢深静脉血栓导致肺栓塞中的临床作用。方法74例下肢深静脉血栓形成患者(42例已经发生肺栓塞),为预防肺栓塞或再次肺栓塞而置入下腔静脉滤器,65例患者放置永久滤器,9例年轻患者放置可回收滤器。除8例有抗凝禁忌证患者外,其他患者行抗凝溶栓治疗。可回收滤器在放置后6~15天取出。随访观察有无滤器并发症、肺栓塞或复发肺栓塞出现。结果滤器均成功放置,患者未出现滤器错位、移位、倾斜、血栓脱落、滤器折断、腔静脉穿孔等并发症,随访期内未发现肺栓塞或复发肺栓塞,2例放置永久滤器的患者出现滤器血栓形成,1例放置可回收滤器的患者下腔静脉造影发现滤器血栓形成,其他8例可回收滤器取出后肉眼可见血栓,虽然造影没有发现。结论下腔静脉滤器作为预防肺栓塞的方法其效果值得肯定,但应该注意滤器血栓形成,在放置前选择合适的适应证。     

临时滤器捕捉血栓预防肺栓塞的临床观察

目的　观察下肢深静脉血栓形成患者置入的腔静脉临时滤器后捕捉血栓和预防肺栓塞的效果。方法　对确诊单侧下肢深静脉血栓形成的 5 8例患者 ,治疗前经健侧肢体置入腔静脉临时滤器 (antheortemporaryfilter,ATF)并实施手术腔内治疗和 或抗凝溶栓治疗 ,临床观察有无出现肺栓塞症状和体征。治疗后拨除临时滤器观察血栓的捕捉。结果　下腔静脉滤器置入全部成功 ,下肢深静脉血栓形成患者治疗后效果良好 ,无症状性肺栓塞发生。置入滤器平均 (1 2 . 0± 2 . 0 )d取出。临时滤器捕捉血栓患者 4 6例 ,占 79. 3%,其中 2例捕捉到大于 1cm血栓 ,经切开股静脉将滤器和血栓一并取出。结论　临时滤器预防肺栓塞安全有效 ,无远期并发症之忧 ,下肢深静脉血栓形成患者为预防肺栓塞措施置入临时滤器是有必要的。     

临时腔静脉滤器在下肢骨折患者中的应用

目的 探讨下肢骨折合并急性深静脉血栓形成的患者围手术期肺栓塞预防及临时性腔静脉滤器使用的必要性及安全性.方法 对782例下肢骨折患者围手术期明确诊断有急性深静脉血栓形成患者,选择其中相对年轻(年龄≤45周岁)的91例患者放置临时性腔静脉滤器预防肺栓塞,术后进行随访.结果 89例成功置入临时性腔静脉滤器,置入时间15～42 d,平均27 d,取出时拦截血栓78例,拦截率87.6%.82例(92.1%)在预期时间一次取出,7例(7.9%)拦截较大血栓经再次溶栓后二次取出.无一例更换永久性滤器,取出后随访3～6个月并行标准抗凝治疗,未发生致命性肺栓塞,32例(35.9%)患者行肺动脉CT成像(CTPA)检查,证实未发现微小肺动脉栓塞灶.结论 临时性腔静脉滤器能有效地减少下肢骨折合并急性深静脉血栓形成患者围手术期肺栓塞发病率及致死率,并能减少置放永久性滤器所致的中远期并发症.     

导管溶栓及置入下腔静脉滤器预防肺栓塞的临床应用

目的评价导管溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓形成的效果及置入下腔静脉滤器预防下肢深静脉血栓脱落引起肺栓塞的价值。方法48例下肢深静脉血栓患者分别经股静脉（40例）、右颈静脉（8例）置入下腔静脉滤器，滤器位于双。肾静脉水平以下的下腔静脉内，下腔静脉滤器植入后将溶栓导管插入血栓之髂股静脉进行溶栓。药物：尿激酶80-100万u，肝素1mg／kg。结果下腔静脉滤器置入全部成功，术中导管溶栓32例完全再通及部分再通，余16例术后溶栓成功。结论经导管术中溶栓成功率高，效果好，置入下腔静脉滤器防止肺栓塞是安全有效的方法。     

下腔静脉滤器植入联合股静脉切开取栓治疗急性下肢深静脉血栓形成：附12例报告

目的：探讨急性下肢深静脉血栓形成的有效治疗方法。
方法：回顾性分析近1年多来下肢深静脉血栓形成病程≤72 h的12例患者的临床资料,12例均采取急诊行永久性下腔静脉滤器植入及患肢股静脉切开Fogarty导管取栓术,术后给予抗凝、溶栓、袪聚等治疗。
结果：所有患者均成功植入下腔静脉滤器,术中取出髂股静脉血栓,术后经抗凝、溶栓治疗,患肢肿胀均明显消退。
结论：下腔静脉滤器植入联合股静脉切开取栓术可有效预防急性下肢深静脉血栓形成患者的肺栓塞,并可提高临床治疗的疗效。

     

可回收腔静脉滤器在下肢骨折伴深静脉血栓患者中的应用

目的探讨下肢或盆骨骨折合并下肢深静脉血栓(DVT)患者置入可回收下腔静脉滤器预防围术期肺栓塞的价值。方法回顾性分析168例下肢或盆骨骨折合并DVT置入腔静脉滤器患者的临床资料,统计滤器回收率及血栓拦截率的情况。结果本组168例患者均成功置入滤器,并于(48.3±4.8) d(14～97 d)后取出可回收滤器;其中159例成功取出滤器,取出率为94.6%,经造影检查或取出腔静脉滤器时发现滤器上有血栓者61例,即血栓拦截率为36.3%(61/168)。结论下肢或盆骨骨折合并DVT患者置入可回收腔静脉滤器可有效拦截血栓、避免肺栓塞的发生。     

复杂可回收下腔静脉滤器回收的方法和技巧：附29例分析

目的:探讨复杂可回收下腔静脉滤器回收的方法和技巧。方法:回顾性分析29例复杂滤器回收的下肢深静脉血栓形成患者资料。所有患者均先行造影了解滤器情况;对回收钩贴壁患者,分别采用猪尾管支撑技术、导丝成攀及搅拌技术、双向导丝技术、鹅颈抓捕器与成攀导丝结合技术等回收;对下腔静脉继发血栓患者,必要时再次新置滤器1枚,经溶栓、吸栓处理后,将滤器回收。结果:成功回收24例,1例患者滤器未能成功回收,4例放弃,回收率83.9%。术中无下腔静脉破裂出血、肺栓塞并发症,取出滤器完整、无折断现象。至少随访半年,下腔静脉血流通畅、无血栓形成,腹腔无明显积液。结论:导管、导丝及鹅颈抓捕器辅助,溶栓、吸栓等方法可增加复杂可回收下腔静脉滤器回收率,可减少长期留置引起相关并发症。     

彩色超声引导下腔静脉滤器置入术30例临床分析

目的介绍超声引导下腔静脉滤器置入新方法及其对深静脉血栓形成后肺栓塞的预防作用。方法 2 0 0 2年 5月至 2 0 0 3年 7月对 30例下肢深静脉血栓形成 (其中 4例入院时出现肺栓塞 )患者在彩色超声引导下实施下腔静脉滤器置入术 ,其中 15例在滤器置入术后立即实施下肢深静脉取栓术 ,另外 15例行保守治疗。结果本组 30例均获成功 ,经 1～ 14个月平均 6个月的随访 ,除 1例出现滤器闭塞外 ,余无任何并发症及肺栓塞的发生 ,曾出现肺栓塞者滤器置入后未再发生肺栓塞。结论彩色超声引导下腔静脉滤器置入术可有效地预防深静脉血栓形成后肺栓塞的发生     

永久性下腔静脉滤器在下肢深静脉血栓治疗中的中长期疗效及应用价值

目的 总结永久性下腔静脉滤器在下肢深静脉血栓治疗中的中长期疗效并评估其应用价值.方法 回顾性分析上海交通大学医学院附属仁济医院血管外科2010年1月-2015年10月置入永久性下腔静脉滤器的86例下肢深静脉血栓的病例资料,其中男性41例,女性45例,年龄50 ～ 94岁,平均年龄71.8岁.深静脉血栓位于左下肢51例,右下肢25例,双下肢10例,合并肺栓塞6例.滤器置入后,无溶栓禁忌者行导管溶栓,必要时行髂股静脉球囊扩张及支架置入.术后除抗凝禁忌者外,均采用抗凝治疗.结果 所有患者均一次性放置滤器成功.置入贝朗Vena Tech LP滤器76例,强生TrapEase滤器10例.单纯滤器置入65例,滤器置入+导管溶栓7例,滤器置入+导管溶栓+球囊扩张/支架置入14例.随访12～81个月,平均51个月,死亡27例,均非滤器相关性,其中恶性肿瘤17例,其他死因10例.深静脉血栓复发3例,支架狭窄伴血栓形成2例.滤器倾斜6例,倾斜角度＜15°,滤器下方血栓形成3例,滤器明显移位2例,无滤器断裂、下腔静脉穿孔及出血等发生,无症状性肺栓塞新发或者复发.结论 永久性滤器可以有效预防下肢深静脉血栓导致的肺栓塞,但长期留置可能导致相关并发症,对于高龄或者合并晚期肿瘤等、预期寿命有限的患者,永久性滤器仍是不错的选择.     

Early experience with the retrievable OptEase vena cava filter in high-risk trauma patients.

OBJECTIVES: Prophylactic vena cava filters (VCF) are efficient in preventing pulmonary embolism. Filter retrieval avoids the potential long-term complications of permanent VCF. Clinical evaluation was focused on filter-related complications and feasibility of retrieval in high-risk trauma patients. METHODS: Analysis of single-institution consecutive case series of patients who received a prophylactic OptEase VCF after multiple trauma between 08/2003 and 12/2004. Data were collected prospectively. RESULTS: A total of 37 OptEase filters were inserted prophylactically after multiple trauma (median patient age 35 years, range, 17-73 years, median ISS 41, range, 17-59). All patients had contraindications for pharmacological prophylaxis for thromboembolic events. 32 filters (86%) were retrieved after 16 days (range, 7-25 days). 12 of 33 filters (36%) demonstrated trapped clots/thrombosis within the filter structure on pre-retrieval cavography. Two patients received anticoagulation before filter retrieval due to filter thrombosis (6%). Symptomatic PE was observed in 1 patient (3%) 5 days after VCF retrieval. Minor caudal filter migration was observed in 1 patient (3%). Overall mortality was 3%. CONCLUSIONS: Retrieval of the OptEase filter is safe and feasible. Temporary filter placement avoids possible long-term complications of permanent VCF. It is an efficient form of PE prophylaxis when temporary contraindications to anticoagulation are present.     

Vena cava filters and inferior vena cava thrombosis

OBJECTIVE: Retrievable vena cava filters (R-VCF) are a recent addition to the therapeutic armamentarium for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. However, unlike permanent vena cava filters (P-VCF), outcomes data are limited regarding complication rates. METHODS: This was a retrospective comparative analysis of consecutive patients undergoing placement of R-VCF vs P-VCF at Wake Forest University School of Medicine from January 2000 to December 2004. Data collected included demographics, procedural specifics, filter type, indications, and complications. Summary data are expressed as number (percentage) or mean +/- SD. Continuous and categorical variables were analyzed by using t and Fisher exact testing, as appropriate. Four additional patients with vena cava thrombosis were also referred to our institution for treatment during the study period, all with opposed biconical VCFs (OptEase and TrapEase filters) recently placed at other facilities. This last group of patients is described but not included in the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 189 VCF (165 P-VCF and 24 R-VCF) cases were examined. No significant differences in VCF groups were observed according to age, documented hypercoagulability, or concomitant anticoagulation. Significant differences were observed according to sex (30.3% of P-VCF vs 62.5% of R-VCF patients were female), morbid obesity (4.2% of P-VCF vs 25% of R-VCF patients), active malignancy (20% of P-VCF vs 41.7% of R-VCF patients), and indication for VCF placement. Over a median follow-up of 8.5 months, no case of significant hemorrhage, no VCF migration, and four cases of vena cava thrombosis were observed. Vena cava thrombosis was observed more frequently in the presence of R-VCF when compared with P-VCF (12.5% vs 0.6%; P = .007). All observed vena cava thromboses were associated with severe clinical symptoms and occurred in patients who received opposed biconical VCF designs. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, both P-VCF and R-VCF can be placed safely. Among both permanent and retrievable devices, however, opposed biconical designs seem to be associated with an increased risk for vena cava thrombosis. Although causative factors remain unclear, filter design and resultant flow dynamics may play an important role, because all episodes of vena cava thrombosis occurred in patients with a single-filter design.     

下腔静脉滤器植入、溶栓、手术治疗下肢深静脉血栓形成

目的：探讨下肢深静脉血栓形成（DVT）的有效治疗方法。方法 ：回顾性分析近9年来治疗的211例下肢DVT的临床资料。直接患肢深静脉溶栓179例，其中下腔静脉滤器植入29例（临时性滤器5例，永久性滤器24例）；下腔静脉滤器植入并手术（取栓、球囊扩张、支架植入、髂静脉成型）32例，其中植入临时性滤器6例，永久性滤器26例。结果： 146例（68.7%）随访3~108个月，平均54个月。61只下腔静脉滤器均展开良好，有1例临时滤器移位至下腔静脉近心端，其他无移位。临时滤器体内置放2~4周取出。1例永久性滤器植入14个月后滤器中血栓形成。溶栓组显效87例，有效86例，无效6例。手术组显效28例，有效3例，无效1例。手术组显效率显著高于溶栓组（P<0.05），但总有效率差别无显著性（P>0.05）。结论：下腔静脉滤器植入能有效预防肺动脉栓塞，但应严格掌握适应证。手术综合治疗是提高疗效和预防下肢DVT后遗症的有效方法。     

下肢静脉血栓形成后下腔静脉滤网置入预防肺栓塞14例报告

目的探讨数字减影血管造影（digital subtraction angiography，DSA）引导下置入腔静脉滤网对深静脉血栓形成后肺栓塞（pulmonary embolism，PE）的预防作用。方法2003年10月-2004年12月，我院对14例下肢深静脉血栓形成在DSA引导下行下腔静脉滤网置入术，其中12例在滤器置入术后立即行下肢深静脉取栓术，2例保守治疗。结果14例手术均获得成功，手术时问85～115min，平均95min。无并发症。随访1-14个月，平均6个月，均无PE发生。术前曾出现PE的5例滤器置入后未再发生PE。结论下腔静脉滤网置入是一种简便、安全措施，可有效预防深静脉血栓形成后PE的发生。     

下腔静脉滤器在下肢深静脉血栓治疗中的应用

目的 探讨下肢深静脉血栓形成患者置人下腔静脉滤器预防肺栓塞的作用。方法 55例下肢深静脉血栓患者治疗前置人下腔静脉滤器，其中Simon Nitiol滤器(SNF)25例，Trap Ease滤器(TEF)13例，Antheor Temporal滤器(ATF)17例。10例采用抗凝溶栓治疗，45例实施手术和腔内治疗，临床观察有无出现肺栓塞症状和体症，定期透视SNF和TEF的形态与位置。结果 下腔静脉滤器置人全部成功，经治疗下肢深静脉血栓症状及体征消失．无肺栓塞发生。1例置入SNFl6个月，出现下腔静脉阻塞；17例临时性置放滤器者ATF取出后发现有血栓性物质。结论 腔静脉滤器近期预防肺动脉栓塞简便安全有效，远期并发症要引起重视，并待进一步研究。     

下腔静脉滤器置放术在深静脉血栓-肺栓塞演变中的临床应用

目的探讨下腔静脉滤器(IVCF)在预防深静脉血栓(DVT)-肺栓塞(PE)演变中的临床应用价值。方法经造影和(或)彩色多普勒超声证实为下肢深静脉广泛血栓30例,其中有肺部临床表现21例,胸部影像学证实19例,DSA显示下腔静脉内血栓6例。溶栓介入治疗前置放IVCF 30例,下腔静脉内血栓形成未放IVCF 1例。置放IVCF后经患肢足背静脉滴注尿激酶或经导管血栓内抽吸、局部溶栓、导丝搅拌增加溶栓接触面积;经非患肢静脉给予抗凝、抗生素治疗。结果本组30例放置5种构型滤器32枚,其中2枚为临时滤器,置入取出均顺利,滤器无移位,术中无并发症。痊愈9例,有效14例,改善6例,无效1例。因没有及时置入IVCF进行溶栓治疗,深静脉血栓导致下腔静脉血栓6例,后置入IVCF 5例疗效良好,未放IVCF 1例,12天后因肺栓塞死亡。结论下腔静脉滤器对预防深静脉血栓向肺栓塞演变具有一定价值,其置放术安全可靠,便于临床及时溶栓抗凝治疗,但其应用价值需进行综合评价和进一步探讨。     

Inferior vena cava filters prevent pulmonary emboli in patients with metastatic pathologic fractures of the lower extremity

The records of 47 consecutive patients with metastatic pathologic fractures of the lower extremity were analyzed with respect to thromboembolic complications. All patients were unable to receive pharmacologic deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis, and were stratified into two groups, based on use of an inferior vena cava filter. Group I (n = 24) consisted of patients who had an inferior vena cava filter plus mechanical deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis (compression stockings and sequential compression boots); Group II (n = 23) consisted of a group of patients receiving only mechanical deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis. All patients had routine lower extremity venous duplex imaging preoperatively, postoperatively, and before hospital discharge. At final followup, patients were examined for deep venous thrombosis and reviewed for thromboembolic events. At a mean followup of 11.5 months, Group I had two detectable deep venous thromboses and no pulmonary emboli; Group II had one detectable deep venous thrombosis and five pulmonary embolisms. In Group II, 40% (two of five) of pulmonary embolisms were fatal, yielding an 8.7% (two of 23) group mortality rate. Overall, the entire group had an approximately 17% deep venous thrombosis rate. Only 6.4% (three of 47) of deep venous thromboses were detectable by standard duplex imaging. The majority of deep venous thromboses (five of eight, 62.5%) were nondetectable by duplex imaging. Overall, a 4.3% (two of 47) death rate was attributable to pulmonary embolism. In contrast, an 8.6% (four of 47) mortality rate occurred in Group II alone. All pulmonary embolisms occurred in patients who did not receive an inferior vena cava filter. The majority of venous thromboses (62.5%) were not detectable on duplex scanning, therefore were thought to arise from the pelvic venous system. Complications related to inferior vena cava filter insertion were minimal. For patients with metastatic pathologic fractures of the lower extremities who are unable to receive pharmacologic deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis, the use of inferior vena cava filters, in conjunction with standard mechanical deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis, is a procedure that has a low risk and is useful adjunct to prevent fatal pulmonary embolisms.     

Extended interval for retrieval of vena cava filters is safe and may maximize protection against pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND: Retrieval of optional vena cava filters (VCF) has been demonstrated to be safe and feasible in injured patients in 4 recent studies. However, 2 pulmonary emboli PE were reported in these studies with mean implant durations less than 19 days. In light of these occurrences, we changed our practice for VCF retrieval when patients had recovered from their injuries and at least 30 days after their discharge, or had been stable on therapeutic anticoagulation for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or PE for at least 2 weeks. The aim of the current study was to assess the safety of this approach. METHODS: A review of prospectively collected data on optional VCF over a 16-month period. The filters were inserted prophylactically per an institutional practice guideline or for the presence of DVT or PE with a contraindication and/or complication to anticoagulation. All patients underwent duplex imaging of the lower extremities and had pre- and post- retrieval cavagrams. Demographics, duration of implantation, and complications were recorded. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients had optional VCF inserted since the change in our clinical practice. Indications included prophylaxis for high-risk trauma patients (n = 58), DVT or PE with acute contraindication to therapeutic anticoagulation (n = 22), or complications of anticoagulation (n = 3). Two patients developed lower extremity DVT after filter insertion and 1 patient developed a vena cava thrombosis. Retrieval was successful in 47 of 54 cases (87%) attempted. Median implantation duration was 142 days (range 17-475). A filter strut fracture occurred during retrieval without further consequences. No post-insertion or post-retrieval PE occurred in this study. CONCLUSION: Extended intervals for retrieval of VCF are safe and may maximize protection against pulmonary embolism.