Interv Akut Kardiol. 2004;3(4):177-180

OUR EXPERIENCES WITH TRAPEASE CAVAL FILTER IMPLANTATION

Petr Štverák, Petr Matoška, Iva Stolařová, Roman Štípal, Arnošt Martínek, Zdeněk Tesař

Interní klinika, FN v Ostravě-Porubě

Introduction: Inferior vena cava filters offer a safe and effective way of pulmonary embolus prevention and reduction of complications when compared to earlier techniques of caval interruption. The aim of this presentation is to assess our experience with implantation of permanent caval filter TrapEase.

Method: We performed retrospective analysis of 30 patients to whom 30 permanent caval filters were implantated in our ward, within the period of February 2000–January 2003. Indications for implantation permanent caval filter were: patients with contraindication to anticoagulative therapy and/or patients who have developed pulmonary embolism despite adequate anticoagulative therapy.

Results: What followed, were clinical observation and duplex sonography in 30 patients with implanted caval filter for 16.3±10.6 months (2–36 months).

Abdominal X-ray scan was carried out only in that case, when it was not possible to exclude filter dislocation by duplex sonography. In 1 case, the implantation was complicated by inferior vena cava thrombosis in the patient with hypercoagulable state and in 1 case by fatal pulmonary embolism. No other serious complications were registered. Long-term patency of permanent caval filters in our study was 96.6 % and recidive PE 3.4 %. Migration of vena cava filters were not revealed.

Conclusion: Implantation of TrapEase caval filters is fast practicable due to its small diameter and easy introduction. This method is acceptable for the patient and effective for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. Benefit of TrapEase caval filter for the patients with risk of hemodinamic significant pulmonary embolism is higher, than the risk of early and late complications.

Keywords: pulmonary embolism, vena cava filter.

Published: December 31, 2004  Show citation