A Comparison of Retrievability: Celect versus Option Filter.

PURPOSE

To compare the retrievability of 2 potentially retrievable inferior vena cava filter devices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective, institutional review board-approved study of Celect (Cook, Inc, Bloomington, Indiana) and Option (Rex Medical, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania) filters was conducted over a 33-month period at a single institution. Fluoroscopy time, significant filter tilt, use of adjunctive retrieval technique, and strut perforation in the inferior vena cava were recorded on retrieval. Fisher exact test and Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test were used for comparison.

RESULTS

There were 99 Celect and 86 Option filters deployed. After an average of 2.09 months (range, 0.3-7.6 mo) and 1.94 months (range, 0.47-9.13 mo), respectively, 59% (n = 58) of patients with Celect filters and 74.7% (n = 65) of patients with Option filters presented for filter retrieval. Retrieval failure rates were 3.4% for Celect filters versus 7.7% for Option filters (P = .45). Median fluoroscopy retrieval times were 4.25 minutes for Celect filters versus 6 minutes for Option filters (P = .006). Adjunctive retrieval techniques were used in 5.4% of Celect filter retrievals versus 18.3% of Option filter retrievals (P = .045). The incidence of significant tilting was 8.9% for Celect filters versus 16.7% for Option filters (P = .27). The incidence of strut perforation was 43% for Celect filters versus 0% for Option filters (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Retrieval rates for the Celect and Option filters were not significantly different. However, retrieval of the Option filter required a significantly increased amount of fluoroscopy time compared with the Celect filter, and there was a significantly greater usage of adjunctive retrieval techniques for the Option filter. The Celect filter had a significantly higher rate of strut perforation.