Effect of inferior vena cava filter placement position on device complications.

Background: Indwelling inferior vena cava (IVC) filters can cause complications, including penetration into surrounding structures, migration, and thrombosis of the vena cava. Computational fluid dynamics suggests juxtarenal placement of IVC filters decreases the risk of thrombosis; however, this has not been explored clinically. The present study examines the effect of filter placement position on long-term device complications with an emphasis on IVC thrombosis. We hypothesized that IVC filters placed further caudal to the renal veins were more likely to develop long-term thrombosis.

Methods: A retrospective review of the medical records of patients receiving IVC filters at a single tertiary center between 2008 and 2016 was performed. Patients missing follow-up or procedural imaging data were excluded. The placement procedure venograms were reviewed, and the distance from the filter apex to the more inferior renal vein was measured using reported IVC filter lengths for calibration. The patients were divided into three groups according to the tip position relative to the more inferior renal vein: at or superior (group A), 1 to 20 mm inferior (group B), and >20 mm inferior (group C). The patient and procedural characteristics and outcomes were compared between the three groups. The primary end points were IVC thrombosis and device-related mortality.

Results: Of 1497 eligible patients, 267 (17.8%) were excluded. The most common placement position was group B (64.0%). The mean age was lowest in group C, followed by groups A and B (age, 59.5 years, 64.6 years, and 62.2 years, respectively; P = .003). No statistically significant differences were found in the distribution of sex or the measured comorbidities. Group C was the most likely to receive jugular access (group C, 71.7%; group A, 48.3%; group B, 62.4%; P < .001) and received more first-generation filters (group C, 58.5%; group A, 46.6%; group B, 52.5%; P = .045). The short-term (<30-day) and long-term (≥30-day) outcomes, including access site hematoma, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism, were uncommon, with no differences between the groups. Cases of symptomatic filter penetration, migration, and fracture were rare (one, one, and three cases, respectively). Although a pattern of increasing thrombosis with more inferior placement was found, the difference between groups was not statistically significant (group A, 1.5%; group B, 1.8%; group C, 2.5%; P = .638). No cases of device-related mortality occurred. All-cause mortality after a mean follow-up of 2.6 ± 2.3 years was 41.3% and did not vary significantly between the groups (P = .051). Multivariate logistic regression revealed that placement position did not predict for short- or long-term deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, IVC thrombosis, or all-cause mortality after adjustment for the baseline patient characteristics.

Conclusions: IVC filters have low rates of short- and long-term complications, including IVC thrombosis. The placement position did not affect the occurrence of device complications in this study.