Cantwell Colin P, Pennypacker Jason, Singh Harjit, Scorza Leslie B, Waybill Peter N, Lynch Frank C
Heart and Vascular Institute, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA.
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009 Sep;20(9):1193-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2009.05.037. Epub 2009 Jul 29.
To compare the technical success of the Recovery and G2 filters as retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.
Recovery (n = 128) and G2 (n = 113) filters were placed in the IVCs of 241 patients with the intent of retrieval. The referring physician and/or patient were contacted at 6-month intervals to ensure filter retrieval when indicated. The Recovery and G2 filter groups were compared regarding technical success of filter placement, technical success of attempted retrieval, filter tilt, filter migration, filter fracture, and filter efficacy.
Filter placement was technically successful in 95% of Recovery filters (n = 122) and 100% of G2 filters (n = 113). Recovery filter retrieval was attempted in 55% of patients (n = 71) at a mean of 228 days (range, 0-838 d) after filter placement. G2 filter retrieval was attempted in 55% of patients (n = 62) at a mean of 230 days (range, 7-617 d) after filter placement. Technical success rates of filter retrieval were 94% (n = 67) and 97% (n = 60) in the Recovery and G2 filter groups, respectively. The G2 filter group had significantly fewer cases of (i) filter tilt at placement, (ii) filter tilt at attempted retrieval, and (iii) filter fracture than the Recovery filter group. In the G2 filter group, there was a significantly higher technical success rate of filter placement and there were more cases of caudal filter migration than in the Recovery filter group.
Compared with the Recovery filter, the G2 filter is associated with significantly less filter fracture and tilt, greater technical success of filter placement, and more caudal filter migration.
比较Recovery和G2滤器作为可回收下腔静脉（IVC）滤器的技术成功率。
将Recovery滤器（n = 128）和G2滤器（n = 113）植入241例有回收意向患者的下腔静脉。每隔6个月联系转诊医生和/或患者，以确保在需要时取出滤器。比较Recovery和G2滤器组在滤器置入的技术成功率、尝试取出的技术成功率、滤器倾斜、滤器移位、滤器断裂及滤器有效性方面的差异。
95%的Recovery滤器（n = 122）和100%的G2滤器（n = 113）在技术上成功置入。55%的Recovery滤器置入患者（n = 71）在滤器置入后平均228天（范围0 - 838天）尝试取出滤器。55%的G2滤器置入患者（n = 62）在滤器置入后平均230天（范围7 - 617天）尝试取出滤器。Recovery和G2滤器组滤器取出的技术成功率分别为94%（n = 67）和97%（n = 60）。G2滤器组在（i）置入时滤器倾斜、（ii）尝试取出时滤器倾斜及（iii）滤器断裂的病例数明显少于Recovery滤器组。与Recovery滤器组相比，G2滤器组滤器置入的技术成功率显著更高，且尾端滤器移位的病例更多。
与Recovery滤器相比，G2滤器的滤器断裂和倾斜明显更少，滤器置入的技术成功率更高，且尾端滤器移位更多。
