Comments about the Bard Recovery filter | Which Medical Device
Categorised under:
Interventional Radiology
>
Vascular
>
IVC Filters
Did you know you can Register for FREE with this website?
Registration gives you full access to all of the features of WhichMedicalDevice. Find out more ...
WhichMedicalDevice is a FREE resource created by clinicians for clinicians.
Registration is free and gives you unlimited access to all of the content and features of this website.
Find out more...Registration is free and gives you unlimited access to all of the content and features of Which Medical Device. Find out more...
Which Medical Device is a community of clinicians sharing knowledge and experience of the devices and procedures we use on a daily basis. We ask that our members register with us so that we can maintain the unbiased and independent nature of our content. Registration is quick and free.
We do not make your details available to any third parties nor do we send unsolicited emails to our members. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Comments
Comment by smabays Commented Nov 15, 2012
Impact factor: 84
User Rating
I have rated this based on its ease of insertion and removal, and not on its actual 'filter effect'.
It has to be one of the simplest filters to insert (usually takes about 5 minutes in a straightforward case), sits well in the cava, and is also very simple to remove.
Comment by phil Commented Aug 24, 2011
Impact factor: 5138
Following on from Rodo's comments on the Bard recovery filter. A controversial topic. We tend to manage our patients with anticoagulation alone unless they have proven PE on anticoagulation or contraindication to anticoagulation in which case they get a filter. The filter is usually a 'retrievable type' either Cook Celect or Bard Recovery filter.
Comment by rodo Commented Aug 23, 2011
Impact factor: 140
User Rating
Use of a Retrievable Vena Cava Filter With Low-Intensity Anticoagulation for Prevention of Pulmonary Embolism in Patients With Cancer: An Observational Study in 106 Cases.
Bruno Damascelli, Vladimira Ticha, Gianluigi Patelli, Rodolfo Lanocita et al. J Vasc Interv Radiol () (2011) PMID 21680201
PURPOSE: To evaluate a retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter in combination with low-intensity oral anticoagulation for prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with malignancy complicated by thromboembolic disease (VTE).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From October 2005 to December 2009, 107 Bard G2 filters were placed in 106 patients. Forty-eight patients had deep vein thrombosis (DVT) alone, 53 had PE with DVT, and five had PE with no evidence of DVT. After an initial period of anticoagulation with heparin, low-intensity oral anticoagulant therapy to achieve a target International Normalized Ratio of 1.5-2.0 was instituted. Follow-up computed tomography to evaluate the pulmonary circulation, IVC, and lower limbs was performed at 3 and 6 months.
RESULTS: PE recurred in three of 58 patients (5.2%). None of the 48 patients with DVT alone developed PE, nor was there any recurrence of DVT. The filter was removed in 14 patients (13.2%). No complications occurred during the retrieval procedure. A total of 16 complications occurred in seven patients: one migration (0.9%); four cases of vena cava thrombosis (3.7%), three of which were associated with recurrent PE (2.8%); one filter fracture (0.9%); and one IVC penetration (0.9%). Filter tilting greater than 15° occurred in six patients (5.7%) and was associated with other complications in five (4.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with malignancies complicated by VTE, an IVC filter together with low-intensity anticoagulation may be a possible treatment strategy for PE prophylaxis. Controlled studies are warranted.
Copyright © 2011 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2011.04.015