Comparison of the in vitro clot-capturing efficiencies of commercially available retrievable inferior vena cava filters.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the in vitro clot-capturing efficiencies (CCEs) of commercially available retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.