Mahnken Andreas H, Pfeffer Jochen, Stanzel Sven, Mossdorf Anne, Günther Rolf W, Schmitz-Rode Thomas
Applied Medical Engineering, Helmholtz Institute, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, RWTH Aachen University, Germany.
Invest Radiol. 2007 Jul;42(7):529-35. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e318036b42b.
To systematically evaluate different optionally retrievable and permanent inferior vena cava (IVC)-filters with respect to their capture rates.
Seven optionally retrievable and permanent IVC filters were tested in an in vitro flow model with a tube size of 22 mm in horizontal and vertical positions. To analyze the capture efficiency the IVC filters were implanted in concentric and eccentric positions and subsequently exposed to single and multiple blood clots of different sizes (3x5, 3x10, 5x10, 5x20, 7x20, 10x24 mm). Capture rates and pressure changes were measured and compared between the different IVC filters.
There were significant differences between the tested IVC filters. In general, the capture rate improved with increasing clot size (P<0.0001). In the single-clot exposure the highest mean capture rate was achieved with the Celect filter (90.4%+/-15.7%), whereas the Günther Tulip filter achieved best results in the multi-clot exposure (76.7%+/-12.5%). Capture rates differed significantly between the various IVC filters (single-clot: P<0.0001; multi-clot: P=0.0016). The position (horizontal or vertical) did not show a significant influence, whereas capture rates significantly decreased in the multi-clot test with eccentric filter positions (P=0.0299). In this study optionally retrievable IVC filters were more efficient than the tested permanent IVC filters (single-clot: P<0.0001; multi-clot: P=0.0002).
Optionally retrievable IVC filters are efficient. Clot size, IVC filter type, and position significantly influence capture rate. Deliberate selection of the most efficient IVC filter and concentric positioning are important to ensure optimal results.
系统评估不同的可取出式和永久性下腔静脉（IVC）滤器的捕获率。
在体外血流模型中，对7种可取出式和永久性IVC滤器在水平和垂直位置、管径为22 mm的条件下进行测试。为分析捕获效率，将IVC滤器植入同心和偏心位置，随后使其暴露于不同大小（3×5、3×10、5×10、5×20、7×20、10×24 mm）的单个和多个血凝块中。测量并比较不同IVC滤器之间的捕获率和压力变化。
测试的IVC滤器之间存在显著差异。总体而言，捕获率随血凝块大小增加而提高（P<0.0001）。在单次血凝块暴露中，Celect滤器的平均捕获率最高（90.4%±15.7%），而Günther Tulip滤器在多次血凝块暴露中取得了最佳结果（76.7%±12.5%）。不同IVC滤器之间的捕获率差异显著（单次血凝块：P<0.0001；多次血凝块：P=0.0016）。位置（水平或垂直）未显示出显著影响，而在多次血凝块测试中，滤器偏心位置时捕获率显著降低（P=0.0299）。在本研究中，可取出式IVC滤器比测试的永久性IVC滤器更有效（单次血凝块：P<0.0001；多次血凝块：P=0.0002）。
可取出式IVC滤器是有效的。血凝块大小、IVC滤器类型和位置显著影响捕获率。谨慎选择最有效的IVC滤器并采用同心定位对于确保最佳结果很重要。
