下腔静脉滤器植入术67例临床分析

目的探讨下腔静脉滤器（inferior vena cava filter,IVCF）在下肢深静脉血栓形成中预防肺栓塞的应用。方法回顾性分析67例为预防肺栓塞放置下腔静脉滤器的临床资料。结果本组65例一次植入成功,1例因血管变异改变植入入路后成功,1例因下腔静脉血栓形成放弃植入。37例（55．2％）为永久性滤器植入,30例（43．3％）为临时性滤器植入。永久性滤器患者随访32例,平均时间14．5（6—32）个月。8例患者出现不同程度近心端移位,其中1例移位显著予取出。所有放置滤器患者均无继发PE发生。未发现腔静脉继发性血栓形成。结论腔静脉滤器植入是预防肺栓塞安全、有效的方法,存在一定并发症发生风险。应尽可能留置临时性滤器以降低远期并发症发生。     

下腔静脉滤器在治疗下肢深静脉血栓中的应用

目的探讨下腔静脉滤器在治疗下肢深静脉血栓中的应用价值。方法46例下肢深静脉血栓患者在其他治疗前先置入下腔静脉滤器,然后其中20例采用抗凝、溶栓等药物治疗＋气压梯度治疗,另26例实施手术治疗,并同时采取抗凝、溶栓及气压梯度治疗。观察本组患者有无出现肺栓塞的症状及体症,定期透视滤器的形态与位置。结果下腔静脉滤器置入全部成功,其中置入永久性下腔静脉滤器38例,置入临时性下腔静脉滤器8例。经治疗46例患者中44例的下肢深静脉血栓症状及体征消失或缓解,无肺栓塞发生。对置入永久性下腔静脉滤器者中的36例进行2～24个月的随访（平均13个月）,滤器无移位,未发生肺栓塞。结论下腔静脉滤器置入方法简单、安全,可有效防止肺动脉栓塞的发生,可为下肢深静脉血栓治疗提供有效保障。     

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。     

腔静脉临时滤器在下肢深静脉血栓形成治疗中的应用

目的探讨腔静脉临时滤器在下肢深静脉血栓形成(DVT)患者治疗中预防肺动脉栓塞(PE)的应用价值。方法回顾性分析我院2006年12月～2009年8月行腔静脉临时滤器植入术的49例下肢DVT患者的临床资料。结果 49例滤器均成功植入及取出,30例取出滤器可见捕获血栓,无PE发生。结论临时滤器在下肢DVT治疗中预防PE塞是安全、有效的。     

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。

     

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。     

下腔静脉滤器植入在下肢深静脉血栓形成溶栓治疗中的应用

目的探讨下腔静脉滤器(IVCF)在下肢深静脉血栓形成(DVT)的溶栓治疗中,对预防致命性肺栓塞(PE)的有效性、安全性及手术指征。方法 10例下肢DVT患者接受IVCF植入术,术后给予溶栓及抗凝治疗。结果全组病例均获成功,疗效满意。10例均获得随访,随访时间1～23个月,随访期间无PE、严重出血性疾病及滤器相关死亡发生。结论 IVCF植入的应用不仅有效预防PE的发生,而且使溶栓治疗更为安全。     

临时性下腔静脉滤器预防肺动脉栓塞临床研究

目的 观察临时性下腔静脉滤器在预防肺动脉栓塞(PE)中的安全性和有效性.方法 112例经多谱勒超声证实存在下肢深静脉血栓形成(DVT)患者,给置入TempofilterⅡ临时性下腔静脉滤器,分析其使用的安全性及预防PE中的作用.结果 112例植入TempofilterⅡ临时性下腔静脉滤器的患者1例出现滤器脱出,54(48.2%)例发现滤器上拦截到血栓,在滤器置人期间没有发生PE.结论 Tempofilter Ⅱ下腔静脉滤器的置人能有效拦截缸栓,防止PE发乍.     

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。     

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.     

山东半岛成人肾下下腔静脉直径与长度测量及其意义

目的 利用数字减影血管造影(DSA)测量肾下下腔静脉的直径及长度,定位肾静脉位置,更好地指导下腔静脉滤器类型选择与准确置放.方法 选择2008年4月至2010年6月因下肢深静脉血栓形成行下腔静脉滤器置放的83例患者,男性49例,女性34例,平均年龄56.4岁.滤器置放指征均参考ACCP-8标准.于放置滤器前行下腔静脉造影,通过DSA自带软件测量肾下下腔静脉直径及长度,同时确认肾静脉开口的位置及下腔静脉的形态,根据上述结果选择不同的滤器.结果 根据造影结果选择合适滤器,所有滤器释放位置良好,无覆盖肾静脉情况发生.肾下下腔静脉直径10～26 mm,平均(19±5)mm,无直径＞28 mm的巨大下腔静脉.肾下段下腔静脉长度平均为(10.6±2.8)cm.肾静脉位于L1-2之间,髂静脉分叉位于L4-5腰椎之间.结论 肾下下腔静脉直径与长度的测量对于指导滤器类型的选择及国产滤器的研发有较大作用,下腔静脉造影对腔静脉滤器的精确置放有重要的指导意义.

Abstract：

Objective To measure the diameter and length of infrarenal inferior vena cava (IVC)in Shandong Peninsula adult through digital subtraction angiography ( DSA) for better vena cava filter (VCF) choice and placement. Methods From April 2008 to June 2010, 83 discontinuous patients (49 males and 34 females, mean age 56. 4 years) with deep venous thrombosis ( DVT) of lower extremity were placed VCF through DSA according to ACCP-8. During operation, diameter and length of infrarenal IVC were measured. At the same time, the renal vein location and the type of the IVC were identified to help the VCF choice. Results All the VCFs were placed successfully, no complications occurred. The diameter of infrarenal IVC was 10 to 26 mm with a mean of (19 ±5) mm. The average length from beginning of IVC to the lower renal vein was (10. 6 ±2. 8) cm. The renal vein was located between the first and second lumbar vertebra, the IVC beginning was located between the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebra. Conclusions Diameter and length measurement of infrarenal IVC is helpful to the VCF selection and the domestic VCF research. Vena cava angiography is very important to the accurate placement of VCF.     

可回收下腔静脉滤器在骨折合并深静脉血栓中的应用

目的探讨下肢/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(IVC)滤器预防围术期肺栓塞(PE)的价值。方法回顾性分析1 891例下肢/盆腔骨折合并DVT患者的临床资料。411例置入永久型滤器的患者未纳入研究,其余患者根据是否置入可回收IVC滤器,将患者分为滤器组(n=843)与对照组(n=637);比较两组患者围术期症状性PE的发生率和死亡率。结果滤器组218例置入Optease型滤器,平均于(14.3±3.6)天取出可回收滤器;625例置入Celcet滤器,其中578例行滤器取出术,566例成功取出滤器(97.92%,566/578),滤器平均留存时间(15.8±4.1)天。与对照组[1.57%(10/637)]相比,滤器组PE发生率[0.12%(1/843)]明显下降(P0.05)。接受抗凝治疗患者中,滤器组和对照组PE发生率分别为0.14%(1/700)、1.47%(9/612),差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论下肢/盆骨骨折合并DVT患者置入可回收IVC滤器预防围术期症状性或致死性PE安全、有效。     

Long-term follow-up of trauma patients with a vena caval filter

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an important complication in blunt trauma patients. At our Level I trauma center, we had a deep venous thrombosis (DVT) rate of 3.2% from 1993 to 1997 despite an aggressive VTE prophylaxis program. During this time period, we placed vena caval filters (VCF) for both traditional and prophylactic indications. This project was developed to establish a VCF registry for trauma patients to determine the long-term complications of VCF placement. METHODS: A letter was sent to all trauma patients who had a VCF placed from 1993 through 1997. Patients were asked to return for a history and physical examination to detect signs and symptoms related to VTE, a duplex ultrasound of the inferior vena cava, and a plain abdominal radiograph to determine filter migration. RESULTS: There were 191 VCFs inserted in our trauma population from 1993 to 1997. There were 105 patients (75 male and 30 female) available for evaluation, with a mean follow-up of 28.9 months. Forty-one VCFs were placed in patients with DVT or pulmonary embolism, and 64 were placed in patients for prophylactic indications as per the guidelines developed by the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. There were no clinically identifiable complications related to insertion of the VCF. There were no pulmonary embolisms detected after VCF insertion. In follow-up, only one filter (0.95%) migrated, and this was minimal (1 cm cephalad). One (0.95%) vena cava was occluded, based on duplex ultrasonography, and 11 patients (10.4%) had signs or symptoms of leg swelling after hospital discharge. Twenty eight (44%) of the 64 patients with prophylactic VCFs developed a DVT after filter placement. CONCLUSION: VCFs placed in trauma patients have acceptable short- and long-term complication rates. Consideration should be given to prophylactic VCF placement in patients at high risk for VTE. Randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate whether VCF insertion increases the risk for subsequent DVT.     

Long-term follow-up of Greenfield inferior vena cava filter placement in children.

OBJECTIVE: The long-term results of Greenfield inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement have been well documented in adults; however, similar data do not exist for pediatric patients. The potential for growth and the increased life expectancy in younger patients may contribute to a difference in the natural history of filters placed in children. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of pediatric patients with IVC filters. METHODS: At the University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center, medical records and radiographs of patients 18 years old or younger at the time of IVC filter placement were reviewed. Follow-up data were obtained by interview, physical examination, and venous duplex ultrasound scanning. RESULTS: A total of 15 IVC filters were placed in children 18 years old or younger between 1983 and 1999. In 10 patients the indications for IVC filter placement were lower-extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism. In five patients, prophylactic filters were placed in the absence of DVT because of a high risk for the development of pulmonary embolism. Surgical exposure of the right internal jugular vein was used to place the first eight filters. The remainder were inserted percutaneously through the right internal jugular vein or the right common femoral vein. There were no complications or mortality related to filter insertion. Follow-up of the surviving 14 patients ranged from 19 months to 16 years. During long-term follow-up, no patient had a pulmonary embolus. Of the nine patients who had lower-extremity DVT, three developed mild common femoral venous reflux documented by duplex scan. Of the five patients who had prophylactic filters, four had no symptoms or duplex evidence of reflux. The other patient, who was paraplegic, had bilateral leg edema but no venous varicosities and no reflux on duplex scan 11 years after filter placement. No patient in either group had chronic venous obstruction. CONCLUSION: In long-term follow-up there were no instances of pulmonary embolism, IVC thrombosis, significant postphlebitic symptoms, or significant filter migration among 14 pediatric patients with Greenfield IVC filters. This suggests a safety profile and efficacy similar to that seen in adults.     

Inferior vena cava filter placement for pulmonary embolism risk reduction in super morbidly obese undergoing bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading cause of mortality after bariatric surgery. We evaluated inferior vena cava (IVC) filter use for PE risk reduction in high-risk super morbidly obese bariatric surgery patients. METHODS: IVC filters were inserted according to the patient's risk factors, including immobility, previous deep venous thrombosis (DVT)/PE, venous stasis, and pulmonary compromise. All filters were placed concomitant to bariatric surgery and were placed through a right internal jugular vein access site. We analyzed the prospectively collected data from this cohort and evaluated the incidence of PE and complications. RESULTS: Since April 2003, 41 patients (12 men and 29 women) with a mean age of 47.3 +/- 10.0 years and body mass index of 64.2 +/- 12 kg/m2 (range 47-105) underwent IVC filter placement. These and all other patients underwent standard DVT/PE risk reduction measures. All IVC filter patients had one or more significant risk factors for thromboembolic events. No instances of PE were documented, although 1 patient experienced DVT, and no immediate or late complications related to filter placement occurred. One patient, with a body mass index of 105 kg/m2, died secondary to rhabdomyolysis after an extended procedure. The average filter placement time was 34.3 +/- 9 minutes. CONCLUSION: IVC filter placement for PE risk reduction is safe and feasible in the super morbidly obese. Our data have shown that the filters can be placed expeditiously and with minimal morbidity concomitant with bariatric surgery. In this limited series, IVC filter placement was associated with no PE. Additional studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of IVC filter placement for PE risk reduction and related mortality in the super morbidly obese.     

Clinical outcome and complications of temporary inferior vena cava filter placement

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the current clinical experience of temporary inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement and its related complications. METHODS: From January 2000 to December 2005, we enrolled 33 patients (8 men and 25 women) who underwent percutaneous insertion of a temporary IVC filter in the Department of Vascular Surgery of Tokyo University Hospital. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) was proven in 78.8% of the patients. The indications for filter insertion were contraindication to anticoagulation therapy (9.1%), thrombolytic therapy (12.1%), perioperative prophylactic implantation (84.8%), pregnancy with DVT (3.0%), and prophylactic implantation in the absence of DVT (15.2%). A Neuhaus Protect was used in 13 patients, and an Antheor was used in 20 patients. RESULTS: The mean +/- SD duration of filter placement was 10.6 +/- 7.0 days. There was no case of pulmonary embolism during filter protection and retraction. Filter thrombosis (capture of thrombus) was observed in four patients (12.1%), who then received additional thrombolytic therapy. Thrombi were dissolved by thrombolysis in three, one of whom had replacement with a permanent filter. The thrombus was not dissolved in one patient and was removed under venotomy at the insertion site. Major filter-related complications occurred in nine patients (27.3%), including filter dislocation in four patients (12.1%), catheter fracture in three (9.1%), and catheter-related infection in one (3.0%). In a patient with giant ovarian cancer, the IVC was nearly occluded with massive thrombus around the filter 2 days after operation, and the vena cava was then ligated under open laparotomy. No patients died during filter protection and retraction. CONCLUSIONS: Temporary IVC filters were effective for the prevention of fatal pulmonary embolism. However, our experience of a high incidence of complications related to temporary filters suggests that this device has limited indications and supports the need for innovative design of temporary filters.     

经股腘静脉抽吸治疗下肢深静脉继发下腔静脉血栓

目的探讨经股静脉入路放置滤器治疗继发于下肢深静脉血栓(DVT)的下腔静脉血栓的可行性及安全性,评价滤器保护下血栓抽吸术的有效性。方法收集109例下肢DVT患者,其中11例血栓累及下腔静脉。于路径图引导下经健侧股静脉入路放置Aegisy滤器,打开但不解脱;再次穿刺股静脉,以8F指引导管抽吸下腔静脉内血栓;若血栓脱落于滤器内,尽量取出滤器内血栓后收回滤器,清洗后重新放置。经腘静脉入路抽吸髂股静脉内血栓,应用球囊或支架治疗髂静脉病变。14天内取出滤器。结果对11例DVT合并下腔静脉血栓者均成功取出髂股静脉及下腔静脉内血栓,8例术中发生血栓脱落;置入髂静脉支架5例,球囊扩张6例;8例取出滤器,3例永久植入滤器。随访6~35个月,下腔静脉及支架通畅,患者无活动后酸沉、肿胀,无色素沉着、静脉曲张等。结论经股静脉放置滤器治疗DVT合并下腔静脉血栓安全可行;在滤器保护下应用血栓抽吸术经股腘静脉入路治疗血栓快速、有效。     

Vena cava filters: uses and abuses

Currently, there are more than 10 permanent and optional retrievable vena cava filters in use in North America and Europe. Indications for inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement are intuitive and filters are used in patients who have deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and contraindications to anticoagulation, or in patients who hemorrhage while anticoagulated for DVT. Multiple studies have proposed broadening the use of IVC filters as primary venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in certain patient populations. Many permanent IVC filters have been well studied and have superior performance characteristics. On the other hand, optional retrievable IVC filters are attractive in the patient with a well-defined, short-term risk for VTE and contraindications to anticoagulation. Filter retrieval after the patient can be anticoagulated would eliminate the long-term risk of DVT associated with permanent IVC filter placement. Unfortunately, most optional retrievable filters are relatively new and have little to no data on their long-term performance when used as permanent filters, and the percentage of retrievable filters actually removed is less than 50%. The spirited debate concerning which patient should get which filter is just beginning. More prospective, randomized trials evaluating optional retrievable filters are needed to answer these important questions.     

Current Indications for Preoperative Inferior Vena Cava Filter Insertion in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Morbid Obesity

Background: Pulmonary embolus is a potentially lethal complication in patients undergoing surgery for morbid obesity. In a select group of patients at high risk for venous thromboembolic events (VTE), we have chosen to prophylactically insert inferior vena cava filters via a jugular percutaneous approach. We propose guidelines for preoperative insertion of inferior vena cava filters in patients with clinically significant obesity. Methods: All patients who underwent preoperative insertion of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters as prophylaxis for pulmonary emboli were reviewed. Data regarding body mass index (BMI), prior history of venous thromboembolism, current anticoagulant usage, as well as other patient data were compiled and analyzed. Additionally, all operative notes were reviewed, and operative data were analyzed and compared. Results: 14 patients underwent preoperative IVC filter placement before gastric bypass. Mean patient age was 49.1 ± 1.52 years and mean BMI was 56.5 ± 4.45 kg/m². No complications occurred due to preoperative filter placement, and no pulmonary emboli occurred in this group. Indications for preoperative IVC filter insertion included prior pulmonary embolus (6), prior deep venous thrombosis (7), and lower extremity venous stasis (1). Conclusions: Vena caval filter placement in the preoperative period can be undertaken safely in bariatric patients. We recommend that routine preoperative vena caval filter placement should be undertaken in all bariatric patients with prior pulmonary embolus, prior deep venous thrombosis, evidence of venous stasis, or known hypercoagulable state. Possible roles for IVC filter placement in this patient population are expanding as more data is acquired.