Comparison of the Recovery and G2 Filter as Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters

Colin P. Cantwell, Jason Pennypacker, Harjit Singh, Leslie B. Scorza, Peter N. Waybill, Frank C. Lynch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the technical success of the Recovery and G2 filters as retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. Materials and Methods: Recovery (n = 128) and G2 (n = 113) filters were placed in the IVCs of 241 patients with the intent of retrieval. The referring physician and/or patient were contacted at 6-month intervals to ensure filter retrieval when indicated. The Recovery and G2 filter groups were compared regarding technical success of filter placement, technical success of attempted retrieval, filter tilt, filter migration, filter fracture, and filter efficacy. Results: Filter placement was technically successful in 95% of Recovery filters (n = 122) and 100% of G2 filters (n = 113). Recovery filter retrieval was attempted in 55% of patients (n = 71) at a mean of 228 days (range, 0-838 d) after filter placement. G2 filter retrieval was attempted in 55% of patients (n = 62) at a mean of 230 days (range, 7-617 d) after filter placement. Technical success rates of filter retrieval were 94% (n = 67) and 97% (n = 60) in the Recovery and G2 filter groups, respectively. The G2 filter group had significantly fewer cases of (i) filter tilt at placement, (ii) filter tilt at attempted retrieval, and (iii) filter fracture than the Recovery filter group. In the G2 filter group, there was a significantly higher technical success rate of filter placement and there were more cases of caudal filter migration than in the Recovery filter group. Conclusions: Compared with the Recovery filter, the G2 filter is associated with significantly less filter fracture and tilt, greater technical success of filter placement, and more caudal filter migration.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1193-1199
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
Volume20
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2009

Fingerprint

Vena Cava Filters
Physicians

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Cantwell, Colin P. ; Pennypacker, Jason ; Singh, Harjit ; Scorza, Leslie B. ; Waybill, Peter N. ; Lynch, Frank C. / Comparison of the Recovery and G2 Filter as Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters. In: Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. 2009 ; Vol. 20, No. 9. pp. 1193-1199.
@article{0e95735550994b67aa66da858569bec5,
title = "Comparison of the Recovery and G2 Filter as Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare the technical success of the Recovery and G2 filters as retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. Materials and Methods: Recovery (n = 128) and G2 (n = 113) filters were placed in the IVCs of 241 patients with the intent of retrieval. The referring physician and/or patient were contacted at 6-month intervals to ensure filter retrieval when indicated. The Recovery and G2 filter groups were compared regarding technical success of filter placement, technical success of attempted retrieval, filter tilt, filter migration, filter fracture, and filter efficacy. Results: Filter placement was technically successful in 95{\%} of Recovery filters (n = 122) and 100{\%} of G2 filters (n = 113). Recovery filter retrieval was attempted in 55{\%} of patients (n = 71) at a mean of 228 days (range, 0-838 d) after filter placement. G2 filter retrieval was attempted in 55{\%} of patients (n = 62) at a mean of 230 days (range, 7-617 d) after filter placement. Technical success rates of filter retrieval were 94{\%} (n = 67) and 97{\%} (n = 60) in the Recovery and G2 filter groups, respectively. The G2 filter group had significantly fewer cases of (i) filter tilt at placement, (ii) filter tilt at attempted retrieval, and (iii) filter fracture than the Recovery filter group. In the G2 filter group, there was a significantly higher technical success rate of filter placement and there were more cases of caudal filter migration than in the Recovery filter group. Conclusions: Compared with the Recovery filter, the G2 filter is associated with significantly less filter fracture and tilt, greater technical success of filter placement, and more caudal filter migration.",
author = "Cantwell, {Colin P.} and Jason Pennypacker and Harjit Singh and Scorza, {Leslie B.} and Waybill, {Peter N.} and Lynch, {Frank C.}",
year = "2009",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jvir.2009.05.037",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "1193--1199",
journal = "Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology",
issn = "1051-0443",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "9",

}

Comparison of the Recovery and G2 Filter as Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters. / Cantwell, Colin P.; Pennypacker, Jason; Singh, Harjit; Scorza, Leslie B.; Waybill, Peter N.; Lynch, Frank C.

In: Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Vol. 20, No. 9, 01.09.2009, p. 1193-1199.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of the Recovery and G2 Filter as Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters

AU - Cantwell, Colin P.

AU - Pennypacker, Jason

AU - Singh, Harjit

AU - Scorza, Leslie B.

AU - Waybill, Peter N.

AU - Lynch, Frank C.

PY - 2009/9/1

Y1 - 2009/9/1

N2 - Purpose: To compare the technical success of the Recovery and G2 filters as retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. Materials and Methods: Recovery (n = 128) and G2 (n = 113) filters were placed in the IVCs of 241 patients with the intent of retrieval. The referring physician and/or patient were contacted at 6-month intervals to ensure filter retrieval when indicated. The Recovery and G2 filter groups were compared regarding technical success of filter placement, technical success of attempted retrieval, filter tilt, filter migration, filter fracture, and filter efficacy. Results: Filter placement was technically successful in 95% of Recovery filters (n = 122) and 100% of G2 filters (n = 113). Recovery filter retrieval was attempted in 55% of patients (n = 71) at a mean of 228 days (range, 0-838 d) after filter placement. G2 filter retrieval was attempted in 55% of patients (n = 62) at a mean of 230 days (range, 7-617 d) after filter placement. Technical success rates of filter retrieval were 94% (n = 67) and 97% (n = 60) in the Recovery and G2 filter groups, respectively. The G2 filter group had significantly fewer cases of (i) filter tilt at placement, (ii) filter tilt at attempted retrieval, and (iii) filter fracture than the Recovery filter group. In the G2 filter group, there was a significantly higher technical success rate of filter placement and there were more cases of caudal filter migration than in the Recovery filter group. Conclusions: Compared with the Recovery filter, the G2 filter is associated with significantly less filter fracture and tilt, greater technical success of filter placement, and more caudal filter migration.

AB - Purpose: To compare the technical success of the Recovery and G2 filters as retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. Materials and Methods: Recovery (n = 128) and G2 (n = 113) filters were placed in the IVCs of 241 patients with the intent of retrieval. The referring physician and/or patient were contacted at 6-month intervals to ensure filter retrieval when indicated. The Recovery and G2 filter groups were compared regarding technical success of filter placement, technical success of attempted retrieval, filter tilt, filter migration, filter fracture, and filter efficacy. Results: Filter placement was technically successful in 95% of Recovery filters (n = 122) and 100% of G2 filters (n = 113). Recovery filter retrieval was attempted in 55% of patients (n = 71) at a mean of 228 days (range, 0-838 d) after filter placement. G2 filter retrieval was attempted in 55% of patients (n = 62) at a mean of 230 days (range, 7-617 d) after filter placement. Technical success rates of filter retrieval were 94% (n = 67) and 97% (n = 60) in the Recovery and G2 filter groups, respectively. The G2 filter group had significantly fewer cases of (i) filter tilt at placement, (ii) filter tilt at attempted retrieval, and (iii) filter fracture than the Recovery filter group. In the G2 filter group, there was a significantly higher technical success rate of filter placement and there were more cases of caudal filter migration than in the Recovery filter group. Conclusions: Compared with the Recovery filter, the G2 filter is associated with significantly less filter fracture and tilt, greater technical success of filter placement, and more caudal filter migration.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=69249232027&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=69249232027&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jvir.2009.05.037

DO - 10.1016/j.jvir.2009.05.037

M3 - Article

C2 - 19640733

AN - SCOPUS:69249232027

VL - 20

SP - 1193

EP - 1199

JO - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

JF - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

SN - 1051-0443

IS - 9

ER -