Interrupción de la vena cava inferior mediante filtros de inserción percutánea: Indicaciones y resultados en 287 pacientes

• Ivette Arriagada J ^[1] ; Renato Mertens M ^[1] ; Francisco Valdés E ^[1] ; Albrecht Krämer Sch ^[1] ; Leopoldo Mariné M ^[1] ; Michel Bergoeing R ^[1] ; Sebastián Soto G ^[1] ; Jeannette Vergara G ^[1] ; Magaly Valdebenito G ^[1]
  1. [1] Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile

     Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile

     Santiago, Chile

     
• Localización: Revista Médica de Chile, ISSN-e 0034-9887, Vol. 135, Nº. 3, 2007, págs. 351-358
• Idioma: español
• Títulos paralelos:
  • Percutaneous inferior vena cava filters: Indications and results in 287 patients
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • Background: Anticoagulation is the treatment of choice for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Occasionally this treatment is contraindicated or fails to prevent PE. In these patients, inferior vena caval (IVC) interruption is indicated and insertion of a filter is the most commonly performed procedure. Aim: To report the experience with IVC filters. Material and methods: Retrospective review of all medical records and operative protocols of patients subjected to IVC filter implantations. Follow up was performed by telephone contact with the patient, relatives or primary physicians, ambulatory consultation or by death certificates. Results: During the period 1993-2005 we implanted IVC filters on 287 patients, 55.4% male, average age: 62.1 yrs (17-99). Indications for the procedure were DVT or PE and contraindication of anticoagulation in 141 patients (49.1%), DVT or PE and complication of anticoagulation in 65 patients (22.6%), prophylaxis in 39 patients (13.6%), massive PE or poor respiratory function in 31 patients (10.8%), paradoxal emboli in 4 patients (1.4%) and other causes in seven patients. All percutaneous devices were successfully inserted. There was no morbidity or mortality related to the procedure. The most frequent access site was the internal jugular vein (66.6%). In 24 patients (8.4%) the filter was intentionally deployed above the renal veins. Six patients (2.1%) were lost to follow up after discharge. A mean follow up of 41.5 months was achieved. Ninety one patients died, with a 5 years survival of 64.7%. Symptomatic recurrent PE occurred in 6 patients (2.1%) and was the cause of death on 3 of them (1%), DVT has been detected in 22 patients (7.7%) during the follow up period. Conclusions: IVC filter implantation is a safe and effective short and long term measure to prevent PE and its consequences