A Comparison of Retrievability: Celect versus Option Filter

• Published in: Journal of vascular and interventional radiology Vol. 26; no. 6; pp. 865 - 869
• Main Authors: Ryu, Robert K., MD, Desai, Kush, MD, Karp, Jennifer, RN, Gupta, Ramona, MD, Evans, Alan Emerson, MD, MBA, Rajeswaran, Shankar, MD, Salem, Riad, MD, MBA, Lewandowski, Robert J., MD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.06.2015
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Chicago; Device Removal - adverse effects; Device Removal - methods; Endovascular Procedures - adverse effects; Endovascular Procedures - methods; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Phlebography; Prosthesis Design; Radiation Dosage; Radiography, Interventional; Radiology; Retrospective Studies; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vascular System Injuries - diagnosis; Vascular System Injuries - etiology; Vena Cava Filters - adverse effects; Vena Cava, Inferior - diagnostic imaging; Vena Cava, Inferior - injuries; Young Adult; U.S. Food and Drug Administration; FDA; inferior vena cava; IVC
• ISSN: 1051-0443; 1535-7732
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2015.01.022

Abstract Purpose To compare the retrievability of 2 potentially retrievable inferior vena cava filter devices. Materials and Methods A retrospective, institutional review board–approved study of Celect (Cook, Inc, Bloomington, Indiana) and Option (Rex Medical, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania) filters was conducted over a 33-month period at a single institution. Fluoroscopy time, significant filter tilt, use of adjunctive retrieval technique, and strut perforation in the inferior vena cava were recorded on retrieval. Fisher exact test and Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test were used for comparison. Results There were 99 Celect and 86 Option filters deployed. After an average of 2.09 months (range, 0.3–7.6 mo) and 1.94 months (range, 0.47–9.13 mo), respectively, 59% (n = 58) of patients with Celect filters and 74.7% (n = 65) of patients with Option filters presented for filter retrieval. Retrieval failure rates were 3.4% for Celect filters versus 7.7% for Option filters ( P = .45). Median fluoroscopy retrieval times were 4.25 minutes for Celect filters versus 6 minutes for Option filters ( P = .006). Adjunctive retrieval techniques were used in 5.4% of Celect filter retrievals versus 18.3% of Option filter retrievals ( P = .045). The incidence of significant tilting was 8.9% for Celect filters versus 16.7% for Option filters ( P = .27). The incidence of strut perforation was 43% for Celect filters versus 0% for Option filters ( P < .0001). Conclusions Retrieval rates for the Celect and Option filters were not significantly different. However, retrieval of the Option filter required a significantly increased amount of fluoroscopy time compared with the Celect filter, and there was a significantly greater usage of adjunctive retrieval techniques for the Option filter. The Celect filter had a significantly higher rate of strut perforation.