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。     

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。     

可回收下腔静脉滤器在DVT治疗中的应用

目的探讨临时性下腔静脉滤器在下肢深静脉血栓(DVT)治疗中的应用。方法对28例下肢深静脉血栓(DVT)患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析。采用Seldinger技术穿刺健侧股静脉,先行下腔静脉造影,明确下腔静脉管径、有无血栓及肾静脉开口位置,换导引长鞘,将滤器送入距肾静脉下缘1.5cm处释放,再次造影,证实滤器准确无误,拔管局部加压包扎,术后抗凝治疗。除1例外,其余病例均于14～22d经原路径应用抓捕器取出下腔静脉滤器。结果 27枚滤器取出。在滤器上均可见多少不等的血栓;1例置入15d时滤器被大量血栓阻塞,经手术取栓后,置溶栓导管溶栓,好转,未取滤器。无肺栓塞发生。结论应用临时性滤器可以有效的防止肺栓塞的发生。     

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.     

下腔静脉滤器置入联合置管溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓患者的

目的:分析下腔静脉滤器联合置管溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓(DVT)的临床疗效及临床护理结果。方法:回顾性分析我科自2016年9月—2018年9月期间收治60例下肢深静脉血栓患者的治疗及护理,其中观察组30例行下腔静脉滤器置入联合置管溶栓手术治疗,对照组30例行抗凝药物保守治疗,比较两组患者患肢治疗前、治疗1周、治疗2周后下肢周径差等的差异。结果:观察组30例患者均手术成功,下肢症状快速缓解,无症状性肺栓塞发生。对照组28例患者肢体肿胀缓解较差,2例发生症状性肺栓塞。观察组患者术1、2周的下肢周径差优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:下腔静脉滤器置入联合置管溶栓术治疗对减少致死性肺栓塞、快速缓解下肢水肿及减少深静脉血栓后综合征有显著效果。临床护理是治疗安全的有效保证。     

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.     

下腔静脉滤器置入联合置管溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓患者的护理报告

目的:分析下腔静脉滤器联合置管溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓(DVT)的临床疗效及临床护理结果。方法:回顾性分析我科自2016年9月—2018年9月期间收治60例下肢深静脉血栓患者的治疗及护理,其中观察组30例行下腔静脉滤器置入联合置管溶栓手术治疗,对照组30例行抗凝药物保守治疗,比较两组患者患肢治疗前、治疗1周、治疗2周后下肢周径差等的差异。结果:观察组30例患者均手术成功,下肢症状快速缓解,无症状性肺栓塞发生。对照组28例患者肢体肿胀缓解较差,2例发生症状性肺栓塞。观察组患者术1、2周的下肢周径差优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:下腔静脉滤器置入联合置管溶栓术治疗对减少致死性肺栓塞、快速缓解下肢水肿及减少深静脉血栓后综合征有显著效果。临床护理是治疗安全的有效保证。     

腔静脉滤器联合导管接触性溶栓治疗静脉血栓栓塞症临床分析

目的总结腔静脉滤器(IVCF)联合导管接触性溶栓(CDT)治疗下肢深静脉血栓形成(DVT)合并肺栓塞(PE)的临床经验。方法 2008年9月～2012年9月,我科共收治60例下腔静脉和(或)下肢DVT患者,均经CT血管造影确诊,均行IVCF置入并置管溶栓,其中2例为永久性滤器,25例为临时性滤器,33例为可回收滤器。经大隐静脉穿刺置管50例,经腘静脉或小隐静脉穿刺5例,经胫后静脉穿刺4例,足背静脉穿刺1例。术后经溶栓导管泵入肝素和尿激酶,12例Cockett综合征患者行髂静脉血管成形术(PTA)。结果术后2~4(平均3)天,患肢肿胀开始减轻,患肢大腿(髌上15cm或14cm)较对侧粗(3±2.1)cm,小腿(髌下15cm或14cm)较对侧粗(2±1.2)cm。溶栓时间为5~9天,尿激酶总量150万~1000万U,平均772万U。1例合并红斑狼疮患者因多脏器功能衰竭死亡。无严重出血事件发生。3例可回收滤器未取出,滤器取出率为91%。髂静脉PTA后通畅率50%。结论急性下肢DVT患者血栓位置高、病情危重,如果患者没有抗凝和溶栓禁忌证,行IVCF置入并CDT治疗效果好,Cockett综合征PTA术远期疗效尚需进一步观察。     

Retrievable inferior vena cava filters: early clinical experience

AIM: Multiple-trauma patients often have injuries that prevent the use of anticoagulant or sequential compression device prophylaxis. Temporary inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) offer protection against pulmonary embolism (PE) during the early, highest-risk perioperative and immediate injury period, while avoiding potential long-term sequelae of a permanent IVCF. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic, temporary IVCF placement at the intensive care unit (ICU) bedside under real-time intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance in multiple-trauma patients. METHODS: One hundred and three multiple-trauma patients between July 1, 2002, and July 1, 2004, under-went placement of Günther-Tulip (n=38), Recovery (n=30) or OptEase (n=35) retrievable IVCFs under real-time IVUS guidance. The mean+/-SD injury severity score of the patients was 27.7 (+/-2.2). All patients had abdominal X-rays to verify filter location. Before IVCF retrieval, all patients underwent femoral vein color-flow ultrasonography to rule out deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pre and postprocedure vena-cavography for possible IVCF thrombus entrapment and postretrieval IVC injury. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients died of their injuries; no deaths were related to IVCF placement. One PE occurred during follow-up after filter retrieval, and 2 insertion site femoral vein DVT occurred. As verified by abdominal X-rays, 97.1% (100/103) of IVCFs were placed without complications at the L2-3 level. Filter-related complications included 3 groin hematomas (2.9%) and 3 IVCFs misplaced in the right iliac vein early in our experience; these filters were uneventfully retrieved and replaced in the IVC within 24 h. Forty-four patients underwent uneventful retrieval of IVCFs after DVT or PE anticoagulation prophylaxis was initiated. Thirty-five filters were not removed, including 32 because severity of injury prevented DVT or PE prophylaxis and 3 because of thrombus trapped with the filter. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic, temporary IVCFs placed at the ICU bedside under IVUS guidance in multiple-trauma patients serves as an effective bridge to anticoagulation until venous thromboembolism prophylaxis can be initiated. Further investigation of this bedside technique and the role of temporary IVCFs in these patients is warranted.     

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。     

下腔静脉滤器在急性下肢深静脉血栓形成导管接触性溶栓治疗中的临床应用

目的探讨下腔静脉滤器在急性下肢深静脉血栓形成(DVT)导管接触性溶栓(CDT)治疗中的临床应用。方法回顾性分析2009年10月～2010年12月我科收治的72例急性下肢DVT患者的临床资料。均置入下腔静脉滤器,然后以CDT治疗为主的综合治疗。通过电话、血管彩超及血管造影的方法进行随访,观察下肢深静脉通畅率,有无肺动脉栓塞(PE)发生,滤器内血流通畅情况及滤器并发症发生情况。结果随访3～24个月,平均(8±0.4)个月,2例失访。下肢深静脉通畅率为(60.03±13.48)%,治疗期间有2例发生轻度PE症状,保守治疗后症状缓解。血管造影发现滤器内拦截血栓者12例,及时予以滤器内置管溶栓及导管吸栓后,血栓基本清除。随访发现滤器内血流通畅率为93.02%。结论对于急性下肢DVT行CDT治疗的患者,放置下腔静脉滤器是一种安全有效的辅助方法,有效避免了PE的发生,降低溶栓治疗的风险。     

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。     

Role of prophylactic temporary inferior vena cava filters placed at the ICU bedside under intravascular ultrasound guidance in patients with multiple trauma

OBJECTIVE: Patients with multiple trauma often have injuries that preclude the use of anticoagulation therapy or sequential compression device prophylaxis. Temporary inferior vena cava (IVC) filters (IVCFs) offer protection against pulmonary embolism during the early immediate injury and perioperative period, when risk is highest, while averting potential long-term sequelae of permanent IVCFs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic, temporary IVCF placement at the intensive care unit bedside under real-time intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance in patients with multiple trauma. INTERVENTIONS: Ninety-four patients with multiple trauma seen between July 1, 2002, and November 1, 2003, underwent placement of OptEase (Cordis Endovascular) retrievable IVCFs under real-time IVUS guidance. Mean (+/-SD) Injury Severity Score was 25.1 +/- 2.2). Abdominal x-ray films were obtained in all patients to verify filter location. Before IVCF retrieval all patients underwent femoral vein color-flow ultrasound scanning to rule out deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and pre-procedure and post-procedure vena cavography to identify possible IVCF thrombus entrapment and post-retrieval inferior vena cava injury. RESULTS: Nineteen patients died of their injuries; no deaths were related to IVCF placement. One pulmonary embolism occurred during follow-up after filter retrieval, and 1 insertion site femoral vein DVT occurred. As verified on abdominal x-ray films, 96.8% (91 of 94) of IVCFs were placed without complications at the L2-3 level. Filter-related complications included 2 groin hematomas (2.1%) and 3 IVCFs misplaced in the right iliac vein (3.2%), early in our experience; the filters were uneventfully retrieved and replaced in the inferior vena cava within 24 hours. Thirty-one patients underwent uneventful retrieval of IVCFs after DVT or pulmonary embolism anticoagulation prophylaxis was initiated. Forty-four filters were not removed, 41 because severity of injury prevented DVT or pulmonary embolism prophylaxis and 3 because of thrombus trapped within the filter. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic, temporary IVCF placement at the intensive care unit bedside under IVUS guidance in patients with multiple trauma is simple and safe, and serves as an effective "bridge" to anticoagulation therapy until venous thromboembolism prophylaxis can be initiated. Further investigation of this bedside technique and the role of temporary IVCFs in patients with multiple trauma is warranted. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Patients with multiple trauma often have injuries that preclude the use of anticoagulation therapy or sequential compression device prophylaxis. Temporary inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) offer protection against pulmonary embolism during the perioperative and immediate injury period, when risk is highest. Ninety-four patients with multiple trauma underwent prophylactic, temporary IVCF placement at the intensive care unit bedside under real-time intravascular ultrasound. One pulmonary embolism occurred during follow-up after filter retrieval, and 1 insertion site femoral vein deep venous thrombosis occurred. Ninety-one of 94 IVCFs (96.8%) were placed without complication. Thirty-one patients underwent uneventful retrieval of IVCFs after anticoagulation prophylaxis was initiated. Forty-four filters were not removed, because of severity of injury (n = 41) or because of trapped thrombus within the filter (n = 3). Prophylactic, temporary IVCFs placed under intravascular ultrasound guidance at the bedside in patients with multiple trauma is simple, safe, and an effective bridge to anticoagulation therapy.     

Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Initial Clinical Results

Anticoagulation is the accepted therapy for patients with thromboembolic disease. When contraindications to anticoagulant therapy are present, however, interruption of the inferior vena cava (IVC) may prevent pulmonary embolism (PE). The objective of this study was to report our early technical and clinical results with retrievable IVC filters (IVCFs) for the prevention of PE. One hundred and twenty-seven multitrauma patients between December 1, 2002, and December 31, 2004, underwent placement of Gunther-Tulip (n = 49), Recovery (n = 41), or OptEase (n = 37) retrievable IVCFs under real-time intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance. All patients had abdominal X-rays to verify filter location. Prior to IVCF retrieval, all patients underwent femoral vein color flow ultrasonography to rule out deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and vena-cavography to assess the IVCF for trapped emboli, filter tilt, or retrained thrombus. Thirty-nine patients died of their injuries; no deaths were related to IVCF placement. One PE occurred during follow-up after filter retrieval, and two femoral vein insertion-site DVTs occurred. One hundred twenty (94.4%) of IVCFs were placed without complication at the L2-3 level, as verified by abdominal X-rays. Filter-related complications included three groin hematomas (2.9%) and three IVCFs misplaced in the right iliac vein early in our experience (2.3%); these filters were uneventfully retrieved and replaced in the IVC within 24 hr. Sixty-six patients underwent uneventful retrieval of IVCFs after DVT or PE anticoagulation prophylaxis was initiated. Forty-five IVCFs were not removed: 41 due to contraindications due to anticoagulation and four because of trapped thrombus within the filter. The role of retrievable IVCFs continues to evolve, but in this study of 127 patients, prophylactic temporary IVCF placement was simple and safe, prevented fatal PE, and served as an effective “bridge” to anticoagulation. Further investigation of this bedside IVUS technique and the role of temporary IVCFs in different patient populations is warranted. SECTION EDITOR: Samuel S. Ahn, MD     

下腔静脉滤器在急性下肢深静脉血栓形成导管溶栓治疗中的必要性探讨

目的 探讨急性下肢深静脉血栓形成(deep venous thrombosis,DVT)患者行导管溶栓治疗(catheter direct thrombolysis,CDT)时,置入下腔静脉滤器的必要性.方法 回顾性总结2006年11月至2008年12月在仁济医院(东院)血管外科,经CDT及后续腔内治疗的急性下肢DVT患者临床资料.全组93例(93侧肢体),其中男35例,女58例;左下肢80例,右下肢13例;年龄28～88岁,平均60±29岁.病程5 h至15 d,平均(6.28±7.08)d.结果 93例患者中,置入滤器者30例,未置滤器者63例(67.7%,63/93).左下肢DVT未置滤器者占93.6%(59/63).溶栓后复查数字减影造影(digital subtraction angiography,DSA),77例髂-股静脉血栓完全溶解,其中70例于患肢髂静脉检出狭窄或闭塞性病变,57例接受了后续腔内治疗.全组未发生症状性肺栓塞(pulmonary embolism,PE).术后肺CTA检查:3例PE,均为置入下腔静脉滤器者;1例可疑PE,系未置入滤器者.结论 对于左下肢DVT且血栓未累及下腔静脉者,行CDT治疗时不必常规置入腔静脉滤器.     

预防性滤器应用于高风险肺栓塞创伤患者的系统回顾与Meta分析

目的:评价预防性滤器应用于无深静脉血栓形成(DVT)的高风险肺栓塞(PE)的创伤患者中预防PE的有效性和安全性。方法:检索数据库中关于高风险PE的创伤患者预防性滤器的前瞻性研究以及随机对照试验研究文献,范围从数据库建立到2019年3月21日。再进行筛选文献、提取资料并评价质量,采用Rev Man 5.3软件进行统计学分析。结果:共纳入6项研究,包括811例放置滤器患者和6477例对照组患者,分析显示,预防性滤器可降低PE发生率(RR=0.32,95%CI:0.16~0.63,P=0.001),降低致死性PE发生率(RR=0.20,95%CI:0.04~0.96,P=0.05),同时尚不能认为预防性滤器与下肢DVT发生率的明显增加有关(RR=3.7,95%CI:0.23~60.54,P=0.36)。结论:预防性滤器在高风险PE的创伤患者中可降低其PE发生率和死亡率,并且不会增加DVT发生率。     

Bedside intravascular ultrasound-guided vena cava filter placement

OBJECTIVE: Several reports have demonstrated the efficacy of inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) placement with intravascular ultrasound guidance (IVUS). The majority of these procedures,however, have been done in concert with contrast venography and/or fluoroscopic guidance. The purpose of this report was to evaluate the potential for bedside IVCF placement with "real-time" IVUS guidance only. DESIGN OF STUDY: In a phase I trial, 10 patients underwent IVUS interrogation of the IVC for diameter measurements and localization of the renal veins. Contrast venography verified the IVUS findings prior to filter deployment. In a phase II trial, another 35 patients underwent intensive care unit bedside placement of an IVC filter with only "real time" IVUS guidance using a double puncture technique in the same femoral vein. All patients underwent color-flow ultrasonography of the femoral veins after filter placement to rule out post procedure femoral vein thrombosis and plain radiographs of the abdomen to identify filter location. RESULTS: In the phase I trial, all filters were placed within 15 mm of the most inferior renal vein identified by IVUS. There were no complications, and successful filter placement was verified by contrast venography. In phase II, 33 IVCFs were placed without complications at approximately the L2 level by plain radiograph. One patient had an IVCF deployed in the common iliac vein, which necessitated placement of an uneventful second IVCF at the infrarenal location by IVUS. This same patient had a femoral deep venous thrombosis identified by postoperative duplex ultrasonography. A second patient had IVC thrombus identified by IVUS, and placement was performed with contrast venography in the fluoroscopy suite. IVC measurements ranged from 18-28 mm in diameter. CONCLUSIONS: IVUS accurately measures the IVC diameter and localizes the renal veins, allowing for exact placement of IVCFs. IVUS further avoids the need for contrast agents and for transport of critically ill patients. Bedside insertion of an IVcF with IVUS guidance is simple, safe, and accurate. Further assessment of this technique is warranted.     

Pulse-spray pharmacomechanical thrombolysis for proximal deep vein thrombosis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and feasibility of pulse-spray pharmacomechanical thrombolysis to treat proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in conjunction with the placement of a non-permanent IVC filter. METHODS: We studied 31 consecutive patients with acute proximal DVT defined as the inferior vena cava (IVC), iliac vein and/or femoral vein, who were diagnosed using duplex ultrasonography and/or contrast venography. All were treated with pulse-spray urokinase. Early success was assessed by comparing the pre- and post-treatment venographic severity score. Non-permanent IVC filters were used to reduce the risk of pulmonary thromboembolism. RESULTS: The average total urokinase dose was 1.71 million IU (range: 0.72-3.6 million IU) and the average duration of therapy was 2.4 days. The average percentage of thrombus lysed was 85% (range: 22-100%). A large thrombus trapped by the filter was detected using cavography before extraction of the filter in one patient. There was no major treatment-related adverse event. CONCLUSION: The combination of pulse-spray pharmacomechanical thrombolysis and the prophylactic use of a non-permanent IVC filter was a safe and effective approach for treating acute proximal DVT.