Yu Qian, Tran Patrick, Iyer Deepak, Gutti Subhash, Li Davey, Li Xin, Navuluri Rakesh, Van Ha Thong, Ahmed Osman
Department of Radiology, University of Chicago Medical Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 60637, USA.
School of Medicine, George Washington University, Washington D.C., 20052, USA.
CVIR Endovasc. 2022 Jul 8;5(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s42155-022-00311-4.
The present study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of advanced inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) retrieval using laser assistance compared with forceps via systematic review and quantitative aggregation of available data.
Pubmed and Embase were queried from establishment to September 2021. Original studies with a sample size ≥ 5 that reported at least one primary outcome of patients who underwent laser- or forceps-assisted IVCF retrieval were included. Primary outcomes included technical success and complication rates. Baseline characteristics were extracted: age, sex, presence of filter thrombus, strut penetration, previous retrieval attempt, filter dwell time, fluoroscopy time, and filter type. Complications were categorized by type and severity. Categorical data was pooled and evaluated with chi-square or Fisher exact tests.
From the 16 included studies, a total of 673 and 368 patients underwent laser- and forceps-assisted IVCF retrieval, respectively. Successful retrieval was achieved in 98.1 and 93.7% patients from the laser and forceps groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Major complication rates (1.6 vs 2.1%, p = 0.629) and risk of injury to cava or adjacent organs (1.0 vs 1.4%, p = 0.534) were similar between the two groups. A higher proportion of filters from the laser arm were closed-cell design (75.4 vs 68.1%, p = 0.020).
Based on limited available evidence, forceps- and laser-assisted complex IVCF retrievals were equally safe. The use of laser sheath is associated with a higher retrieval rate than forceps alone, though the baseline characteristics of two cohorts were not controlled. Future large-scale case-controlled comparative studies with longer clinical follow-up are warranted.
本研究旨在通过对现有数据进行系统评价和定量汇总,比较激光辅助与钳夹法取出晚期下腔静脉滤器(IVCF)的安全性和有效性。
检索了从建库至2021年9月的Pubmed和Embase数据库。纳入样本量≥5且报告了至少一项接受激光或钳夹辅助IVCF取出患者的主要结局的原始研究。主要结局包括技术成功率和并发症发生率。提取基线特征:年龄、性别、滤器血栓形成情况、支柱穿透情况、既往取出尝试、滤器留置时间、透视时间和滤器类型。并发症按类型和严重程度分类。对分类数据进行合并,并采用卡方检验或Fisher精确检验进行评估。
在纳入的16项研究中,分别有673例和368例患者接受了激光辅助和钳夹辅助IVCF取出。激光组和钳夹组的成功取出率分别为98.1%和93.7%(p<0.001)。两组的主要并发症发生率(1.6%对2.1%,p=0.629)和下腔静脉或邻近器官损伤风险(1.0%对1.4%,p=0.534)相似。激光组中封闭细胞设计的滤器比例更高(75.4%对68.1%,p=0.020)。
基于有限的现有证据,钳夹法和激光辅助复杂IVCF取出同样安全。尽管两组的基线特征未得到控制,但使用激光鞘管的取出率高于单纯使用钳夹法。未来需要进行大规模的病例对照比较研究,并进行更长时间的临床随访。