Keller Isabella S, Meier Christoph, Pfiffner Roger, Keller Emanuela, Pfammatter Thomas
Institute of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Zuerich Hospital, Raemistrasse 100, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2007 Apr;18(4):505-11. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2007.02.007.
To compare the clinical safety and efficiency of two optional inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.
Ninety-three consecutive Günther Tulip filters (92 patients) were compared with 83 consecutive OptEase filters (80 patients). Filters were placed at the same institution in patients with high-risk multiple trauma or those undergoing neurosurgery with contraindications to primary prophylaxis (70 patients in the Günther Tulip group and 44 in the OptEase group) and in patients with venous thromboembolism and contraindications to anticoagulation (22 patients in the Günther Tulip group and 36 in the OptEase group). The filters were placed in an angiography suite. Catheter vena cavography was performed before filter placement and intended retrieval. Permanent filters were followed-up with duplex ultrasonography and conventional radiography.
All filters were inserted infrarenally without any complications. Fluoroscopy times for placement and retrieval were longer for the Günther Tulip group than the OptEase group. The mean dwelling time was 11 days (range, 3-27 days) for the Günther Tulip filters and 13.8 days (range, 1-34 days) for the OptEase filters. No symptomatic pulmonary emboli (PE) occurred in patients with intended temporary filtration while the devices were in place. Forty-six of the 93 Günther Tulip filters (49%) and 58 of the 83 OptEase filters (70%) were removed. Two Günther Tulip filters could not be retrieved for technical reasons. The mean follow-up for the permanent Günther Tulip (n = 19) and OptEase (n = 8) filters was 41 and 7 months, respectively. One patient from each group had late caval thrombosis. There were no cases of filter migration or disintegration.
Both optional IVC filters are safe and seem to prevent symptomatic PE. On the basis of the fluoroscopy times, the OptEase filters appear to be more operator-friendly. Late filter-associated complications are rare with these filter designs.
比较两种可选的下腔静脉（IVC）滤器的临床安全性和有效性。
将93个连续的 Günther Tulip 滤器（92例患者）与83个连续的 OptEase 滤器（80例患者）进行比较。这些滤器在同一机构放置于高危多发伤患者或有原发性预防禁忌证的神经外科手术患者中（Günther Tulip 组70例患者，OptEase 组44例患者），以及有静脉血栓栓塞且有抗凝禁忌证的患者中（Günther Tulip 组22例患者，OptEase 组36例患者）。滤器在血管造影室放置。在滤器放置前及计划取出时进行导管下腔静脉造影。永久性滤器采用双功超声和传统放射学进行随访。
所有滤器均在肾下置入，无任何并发症。Günther Tulip 组滤器放置和取出的透视时间比 OptEase 组长。Günther Tulip 滤器的平均留置时间为11天（范围3 - 27天），OptEase 滤器为13.8天（范围1 - 34天）。在计划进行临时滤过的患者中，装置在位时未发生有症状的肺栓塞（PE）。93个 Günther Tulip 滤器中的46个（49%）和83个 OptEase 滤器中的58个（70%）被取出。2个 Günther Tulip 滤器因技术原因无法取出。永久性 Günther Tulip 滤器（n = 19）和 OptEase 滤器（n = 8）的平均随访时间分别为41个月和7个月。每组各有1例患者发生晚期下腔静脉血栓形成。无滤器移位或崩解病例。
两种可选的IVC滤器均安全，且似乎能预防有症状的PE。基于透视时间，OptEase滤器似乎对操作者更友好。对于这些滤器设计，晚期与滤器相关的并发症很少见。
