国产腔静脉滤器的临床评价

目的 评价国产腔静脉滤器放置后的安全性及其预防肺动脉栓塞(PE)的有效性.方法 140例急性下肢深静脉血栓形成(DVT)患者行深静脉外科手术取栓或静脉介入溶栓前,放置国产腔静脉滤器,进行近期观察和长期随访.结果 135例(96.4%)1次放置成功,5例(3.6%)2次放置成功;术中未发生国产腔静脉滤器断裂、移位、腔静脉穿孑L等并发症.98例(70%)患者获得术后定期随访,随访时间为1～4年,随访期间未发生PE、滤器下腔静脉血栓形成、腔静脉滤器断裂及变形等现象.1例患者发生滤器移位至右心房,为当地医院介入手术操作昕致,与滤器放置无关.结论 国产腔静脉滤器可以有效地预防PE,其并发症发生率极低.     

肾静脉导丝定位在引导IVC滤器置入中的作用

目的 探讨肾静脉导丝定位的可行性及其在引导下腔静脉滤器(IVCF)置人中的作用.方法 对35例需要IVCF置入的患者行肾静脉导丝定位,确定IVCF放置位置,然后进行碘剂下腔静脉造影对照,判断定位的准确性和安全性.结果 造影证实35例患者导丝均成功进入双侧肾静脉,在肾静脉导丝定位引导下置入的IVCF头端距低位肾静脉下缘均在0～10 mm内;其中23例于2周后将滤器取出,1例因滤器上血栓大于3 mm未同收,2例因滤器下下腔静脉发现血栓未回收,其余9例因年龄大及患者拒绝末进行回收.随访1～22个月,无并发症发生.结论 肾静脉导丝定位在特殊情况下不失为一种较好的替代造影定位的方法.     

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。     

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.     

下腔静脉滤器在创伤并下肢深静脉血栓中的应用

目的评价下腔静脉滤器(IVCF)在创伤合并下肢深静脉血栓形成(DVT)患者中的效用。方法回顾性分析52例创伤合并DVT患者的临床资料,术前植入可回收IVCF,分别为Aegisy滤器(29例)及Denali滤器(23例),Ⅱ期取出联合经皮机械性吸栓治疗,分析患者总体数据,并比较两组患者的差异。结果患者平均年龄53.31±14.03岁,IVCF植入及取出成功率100%,无肺栓塞(PE)发生,19例回收滤器中可见血栓,总体并无IVCF断裂,移位,穿孔,血栓形成的发生,2例Aegisy滤器出现倾斜,但均安全取出。两种滤器操作均较为顺利,IVCF植入及回收的平均操作时间及透视时间并未明显差异。结论可回收IVCF植入对于创伤合并DVT患者安全有效,可确保骨科手术及二期血栓清除的安全进行。     

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。     

置入伞形滤器治疗下肢深静脉血栓后患者下腔静脉穿孔及其影响因素

目的观察置入伞形下腔静脉(IVC)滤器(IVCF)治疗下肢深静脉血栓后患者IVC穿孔及其影响因素。方法回顾性分析51例置入伞形IVCF的下肢深静脉血栓(DVT)患者,其中36例置入Celect滤器(Celect组)、15例置入Denali滤器(Denali组);术后均以CT随访,分析IVC穿孔情况及其与IVC直径及滤器留置时长的关系。结果 51例中,38例IVC穿孔,包括Celect组27例(27/36,75.00%)、Denali组11例(11/15,73.33%),13例未穿孔;组间IVC穿孔率及滤器穿孔级别差异均无统计学意义(P均0.05)。穿孔者IVC直径(16.45±3.09)mm,未穿孔者(17.91±1.78)mm(P0.05)。IVC直径≥16 mm及留置滤器≥3个月下肢DVT患者IVC穿孔率分别高于直径16 mm及留置3个月者(P均0.01)。结论置入伞形IVCF后,下肢DVT患者可见IVC穿孔,与置入滤器类型无关,而与IVC直径及滤器留置时长有关。     

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。     

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置入术预防肺栓塞71例经验

目的探讨永久性下腔静脉滤器 (VCF)置入术预防致命性肺动脉栓塞 (PE)的有效性、安全性和手术指征。方法经颈内静脉或股总静脉放置永久性下腔静脉滤器 71例 ,常规行下腔静脉造影 ,确定下腔静脉和释放途径静脉无血栓形成 ,将滤器放置于平肾静脉开口之下的下腔静脉。结果本组病例均获成功。术后随访 1～ 4 1个月 ,无肺栓塞发生者 ,术后下腔静脉血栓形成 2例 ;滤器倾斜 5例 ,倾斜角度小于 15°。无其他相关并发症。结论永久性下腔静脉滤器置入术可以有效的预防致命性肺栓塞。术前行彩超和术中下腔静脉造影 ,了解下腔静脉和滤器放置通路的情况 ;术后严格的抗凝治疗 ,是确保放置成功、有效预防PE、避免或降低并发症出现的关键。严格掌握VCF的指征是重要的。     

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。     

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.     

Do inferior vena cava filters reduce the risk of acute pulmonary embolism in preoperative patients with venous thromboembolism?

Purpose  

Although prophylactic anticoagulants reduce the risk of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) remain elusive in prophylactic use. This study investigated whether IVCF in addition to anticoagulants augment the prophylactic effect on acute PE in the highest-risk patients.     

OptEase retrievable inferior vena cava filter: initial multicenter experience

The purpose of this article is to describe our experience with the retrievable OptEase inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) (Cordis Corporation, Miami Lakes, FL) in the prevention of pulmonary embolus (PE). Forty patients (24 men, age range 15-85 years, mean age 38 years) who were at temporary risk of PE underwent insertion and retrieval of the OptEase IVCF at two institutions. Eleven patients were treated with filter implantation and subsequent repositioning in the inferior vena cava (IVC) to extend implantation time. All patients were followed up for 24 hours after retrieval, with additional follow-up at the physician's discretion. Forty patients had successful filter insertion. Two patients who underwent intravascular ultrasound guidance for filter deployment required filter repositioning within 24 hours owing to inadvertent placement in the right common iliac vein. All 40 patients underwent successful filter retrieval with no adverse events. In those patients who did not undergo IVCF repositioning, the time to retrieval ranged from 3 to 48 days (mean +/- SD 16.38 +/- 7.20 days). One patient had a successful retrieval at 48 days, but all other retrieval experiences were performed within 23 days. The second strategy involved implantation, with repositioning at least once before final retrieval. This latter strategy occurred in 11 patients, and the time to first capture ranged from 4 to 30 days (mean +/- SD 13.82 +/- 6.13 days). No symptomatic PE, IVC injury or stenosis, significant bleeding, filter fracture, or filter migration was observed. In this feasibility study, the OptEase IVCF prevented symptomatic PE, was safely retrieved or repositioned up to 48 days after implantation, and served as an effective bridge to anticoagulation. In patients who require extended IVCF placement, the OptEase IVCF can be successfully repositioned within the IVC, thereby extending the overall implantation time of this retrievable IVCF.     

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。     

下腔静脉滤器开放手术取出的安全性与可行性分析

背景和目的：下腔静脉滤器（IVCF）在预防致死性肺栓塞（PE）中广泛应用,通常经过腔内介入手段取出。对于腔内取出失败或超回收时间窗的滤器,可考虑手术取出。本研究目的是评价开放手术取出IVCF的安全性及可行性。方法 回顾性分析2019年2月—2022年8月在北京积水潭医院血管外科收治的27例IVCF置入后行开放手术取出的患者临床资料。所有患者开放手术前行介入尝试取出的中位次数为1（1~2）次。结果 所有滤器均全部取出,技术成功率为100%,滤器置入中位时间为20（5~48）个月。其中,Aegisy滤器8例（29.6%）,Denali滤器1例（3.7%）,Cordis滤器10例（37.0%）,Simon滤器1例（3.7%）,Celect滤器3例（11.1%）,Tulip滤器4例（14.8%）。1例（3.7%）滤器位于肾静脉上下腔静脉,1例（3.7%）位于肝后下腔静脉,25例（92.6%）滤器位于肾静脉下下腔静脉。术中,2例（7.4%）于滤器回收钩处留置荷包缝合线,未阻断下腔静脉血流,通过直接钳夹回收钩取出,取出后进行荷包缝合;2例（7.4%）未阻断下腔静脉血流,将滤器直接回收至血管鞘后行荷包缝合;1例（3.7%）阻断双肾静脉及滤器远近端下腔静脉血流,1例（3.7%）分别阻断滤器远端下腔静脉、第一肝门及第二肝门血流,21例（77.8%）阻断滤器远近端下腔静脉血流,然后通过切开下腔静脉前壁进行滤器取出,取出后进行血管壁连续缝合。手术平均时间为（224.15±23.85）min。围手术期无下肢深静脉血栓或症状性PE发生,无心肺系统并发症,无伤口感染。1例（3.7%）出现腹痛伴血性胃液,1例（3.7%）出现血尿,均保守对症治疗后缓解。术前血红蛋白平均为（128.59±15.05）g/L,术后为（110.56±22.15）g/L,6例（22.2%）术后输入悬浮红细胞400 mL,未见致命性大出血及休克。中位术后住院时间9（8~12）d。结论 尽管开放手术滤器取出手术难度较大、技术十分复杂,但滤器取出是安全可行的。术前充分利用CT判断滤器及其回收钩的位置,采用合适的手术方式,通过熟练的手术技巧可以极大地提高开腹手术的安全性和成功率。     

Who is responsible for the removal of inferior vena cava filters?

The fact that many inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) in trauma patients are not being removed has been described numerous times in the literature, but nobody really gives a reason why. This case presents a young patient who prophylactically received an optional IVCF after sustaining severe multitrauma. He had a failed retrieval 8?weeks post insertion and consequently was lost to follow-up before a second removal attempt was performed. Institutions inserting IVCF should establish guidelines for following up patients receiving prophylactic IVCF.     

Extended indications for placement of an inferior vena cava filter

To study the morbidity and mortality rates after placement of an inferior vena cava filter and to define the appropriate indications for interruption of the inferior vena cava, the records of all patients who underwent insertion of a Greenfield filter during the decade January 1978 to December 1987 were reviewed. Patients were designated as having either a traditional or extended indication for placement of an inferior vena cava filter. Two hundred sixty inferior vena cava filters were placed in 264 attempts, with no deaths related to insertion of the filter. An extended indication was the primary reason for placement of the Greenfield filter in 66 (25%) of the patients. In patients with extended indications there were no cases of air embolism or filter misplacement and only three wound complications (4.5%). Pulmonary embolism after insertion of the inferior vena cava filter occurred in three patients (4.5%), with one fatality (1.5%). Inferior vena cava occlusion was documented in three cases (4.5%), and manifestations of the postphlebitic syndrome in early follow-up were present in two patients (3.0%). As the procedures to prevent fatal pulmonary embolism have become safer, more efficacious, and less morbid, the number of patients in whom the potential benefits of insertion of an inferior vena cava filter outweigh the risks has become larger. Our results support the liberalized use of Greenfield filters in those patients who do not necessarily have one of the traditional indications for placement of an inferior vena cava filter but are at a high risk of having a fatal pulmonary embolus.