Abstract
Inferior vena cava (IVC) filtration for thromboembolic protection is not without risks,
and there are important differences among commercially available IVC filters. While
retrievable filters are approved for permanent implantation, they may be associated
with higher device-related complications in the long term when compared with permanent
filters. Prospective patient selection in determining which patients might be better
served by permanent or retrievable filter devices is central to resource optimization,
in addition to improved clinical follow-up and a concerted effort to retrieve filters
when no longer needed. This article highlights the differences between permanent and
retrievable devices, describes the interplay between these differences and the clinical
indications for IVC filtration, advises against a “one-filter-for-all” approach to
mechanical thromboembolic prophylaxis, and discusses strategies for optimizing personalized
device selection.
Keywords
inferior vena cava filters - optional filter - retrievable filter - complications
- patient selection - interventional radiology
