Department of Interventional Therapy, National Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Department of Interventional Therapy, National Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2022 Mar;10(2):463-468.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2021.08.017. Epub 2021 Sep 3.
We compared the in vitro clot-capturing efficiencies (CCEs) of commercially available retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.
Four types of commercially available retrievable IVC filters were included in the present study: Denali (BD, Franklin Lakes, NJ), OptEase (Cordis Corp, Hialeah, Fla), Celect (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind), and Option (Argon Medical Devices, Frisco, Tex). The CCE of each IVC filter for 10 different size clots, ranging from 2 mm × 10 mm to 6 mm × 20 mm, was analyzed using a venous flow simulator.
When ≥4 × 10-mm clots were used, the CCEs were 100% for all four types of IVC filters in a 20-mm-diameter simulated IVC filter. However, when ≤3 × 20-mm clots were used, the CCEs were significantly different among the four types of filters in a 20-mm-diameter simulated IVC, with the Denali showing the highest CCE, followed by the OptEase, Celect, and Option. When ≥6 × 10-mm clots were used, the CCEs were 100% for all four types of IVC filters in the 25-mm-diameter simulated IVC. However, when ≤5 × 20-mm clots were used, the CCEs were significantly different among the four types of filters in the 25-mm-diameter simulated IVC, with the Denali showing the highest CCE. When ≤5 × 10-mm clots were used, the CCEs were significantly lower in the 25-mm-diameter simulated IVC than in the 20-mm-diameter simulated IVC for all four types of IVC filters, with Option showing the greatest change in CCEs, followed by the Celect, OptEase, and Denali.
The CCEs were significantly different among the four IVC filters and were significantly lower for the smaller size clots than for the larger size clots and for the larger diameter simulated IVC than for the smaller diameter simulated IVC.
我们比较了四种市售可回收下腔静脉（IVC）滤器的体外血栓捕获效率（CCE）。
本研究纳入了四种市售可回收 IVC 滤器：Denali（BD，新泽西州富兰克林湖）、OptEase（Cordis 公司，佛罗里达州海厄利亚）、Celect（库克医疗，印第安纳州布鲁明顿）和 Option（Argon 医疗设备，德克萨斯州弗里斯科）。使用静脉血流模拟器分析了每个 IVC 滤器对 10 种不同大小血栓（范围为 2mm×10mm 至 6mm×20mm）的 CCE。
当使用≥4×10mm 大小的血栓时，四种 IVC 滤器在 20mm 直径模拟 IVC 中的 CCE 均为 100%。然而，当使用≤3×20mm 大小的血栓时，四种 IVC 滤器在 20mm 直径模拟 IVC 中的 CCE 有显著差异，Denali 的 CCE 最高，其次是 OptEase、Celect 和 Option。当使用≥6×10mm 大小的血栓时，四种 IVC 滤器在 25mm 直径模拟 IVC 中的 CCE 均为 100%。然而，当使用≤5×20mm 大小的血栓时，四种 IVC 滤器在 25mm 直径模拟 IVC 中的 CCE 有显著差异，Denali 的 CCE 最高。当使用≤5×10mm 大小的血栓时，与在 20mm 直径模拟 IVC 相比，四种 IVC 滤器在 25mm 直径模拟 IVC 中的 CCE 显著降低，其中 Option 的 CCE 变化最大，其次是 Celect、OptEase 和 Denali。
四种 IVC 滤器的 CCE 有显著差异，较小尺寸的血栓的 CCE 明显低于较大尺寸的血栓，较大直径模拟 IVC 的 CCE 明显低于较小直径模拟 IVC。
