Nakata Marohito, Yokota Naoko, Uehara Hiroki, Tabata Kazuhiko, Kenzaka Tsuneaki
Department of Cardiology, Urasoe General Hospital, Urasoe, Japan.
Department of Internal Medicine, Naha City Hospital, Naha, Japan.
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2025 Jul 31;25(1):563. doi: 10.1186/s12872-025-05062-3.
The likelihood of inferior vena cava filter penetration increases with prolonged implantation. Despite the generally low risk associated with an ALN inferior vena cava filter (ALN IMPLANTS CHIRURGICAUX, Ghisonaccia, France), we present a case in which penetration occurred 43 days after implantation. At present, no consensus is available on the standardized approach for filter removal in such cases. In this report, we describe a secure and reliable method involving surgical access to the abdomen and transcatheter filter removal while directly observing the inferior vena cava.
A 72-year-old Japanese male patient presented to our institution with complaints of pain and subsequent edema in his left lower limb. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) revealed thrombi spanning from the left common iliac vein to the external iliac vein, as well as in the right pulmonary artery and inferior vena cava. Upon admission, we promptly inserted an ALN inferior vena cava filter and initiated anticoagulation therapy. Follow-up contrast-enhanced CT performed on day 13 after filter implantation demonstrated disappearance of thrombi in the pulmonary artery and inferior vena cava, and the patient was discharged on day 14 following implantation. However, due to the presence of a residual thrombus in the left common iliac vein, we decided against removing the inferior vena cava filter at that time. Contrast-enhanced CT performed on day 43 after implantation revealed signs suggestive of filter penetration with extension into the abdominal aorta, necessitating immediate filter removal. To address this, we performed transcatheter removal of the filter through open abdominal surgery.
An ALN inferior vena cava filter, initially considered to pose a low risk of penetration, unexpectedly exhibited penetration during the brief indwelling period. Although a definitive consensus concerning the optimal removal approach for such cases remains elusive, our experience indicates that transcatheter removal via laparotomy represents a secure and reliable method.
下腔静脉滤器穿透的可能性会随着植入时间的延长而增加。尽管ALN下腔静脉滤器(ALN IMPLANTS CHIRURGICAUX,法国吉索尼阿)通常风险较低,但我们报告了一例植入后43天发生滤器穿透的病例。目前,对于此类情况下滤器取出的标准化方法尚无共识。在本报告中,我们描述了一种安全可靠的方法,包括通过腹部手术入路并在直接观察下腔静脉的同时经导管取出滤器。
一名72岁的日本男性患者因左下肢疼痛及随后出现水肿前来我院就诊。增强计算机断层扫描(CT)显示血栓从左髂总静脉延伸至髂外静脉,以及右肺动脉和下腔静脉。入院后,我们立即插入了一个ALN下腔静脉滤器并开始抗凝治疗。滤器植入后第13天进行的随访增强CT显示肺动脉和下腔静脉内血栓消失,患者在植入后第14天出院。然而,由于左髂总静脉存在残余血栓,我们当时决定不取出下腔静脉滤器。植入后第43天进行的增强CT显示有滤器穿透并延伸至腹主动脉的迹象,需要立即取出滤器。为此,我们通过开腹手术经导管取出了滤器。
ALN下腔静脉滤器最初被认为穿透风险较低,但在短暂留置期间意外发生了穿透。尽管对于此类情况的最佳取出方法仍未达成明确共识,但我们的经验表明,经剖腹手术经导管取出是一种安全可靠的方法。