Key result
ALN shows no difference in complex retrieval rates compared to Celect IVC filters.
Why the study?
The study was designed to compare IVC Celect and ALN filters regarding their efficacy, retrievability, and one-year follow-up after retrieval.
Does the ALN inferior vena cava filter reduce the complexity of filter retrieval and device complications compared to the Celect filter in patients with venous thromboembolic disease requiring temporary IVC filtration?
RCT (n=100)
Single-blind (patients and follow-up interventional radiologists blinded; performing radiologists unblinded)
1:1 random allocation sequence generated using Research Randomizer version 4.0
Yes
Does the ALN inferior vena cava filter reduce the complexity of filter retrieval and device complications compared to the Celect filter in patients with venous thromboembolic disease requiring temporary IVC filtration?
Both Celect and ALN retrievable IVC filters demonstrated 100% retrieval success and high clinical efficacy at one year, but the ALN filter had significantly lower rates of filter tip embedment, greater subjective ease of removal, and shorter fluoroscopy times during retrieval.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
ALN reduces tip embedment versus Celect without differing in complex retrieval rates; extends RCT evidence guiding IVC filter selection in VTE.
The purpose of this study is to compare IVC Celect and ALN filters in regard to their efficacy, retrievability, and one-year follow-up after retrieval. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective randomized study, conducted in three centers between April 2020 and May 2021. A total of 115 participants were randomized, of which 15 participants were excluded for various reasons. Each group of 50 participants was finally assigned a type of filter (Celect n = 50 and ALN = 50). Tilt angles at placement and retrieval, rates of overall filter retrieval, complications, complex retrieval, and clinical follow-up at 12 months were compared. Results: One hundred participants (59 men and 41 women) were included. The mean age was 62.4 ± 13.3, with no significant differences between both groups (p 0.503). The mean of dwelling time was 44.7 ± 93 days. (p 0.520) Filter retrieval was successful in all participants (100%). The main complication in CT prior to removal was tilt >15° (31%) and filter tip embedment (16%). No significant differences were observed in the type of retrieval (standard or complex) between both filters (p 0.24); however, fluoroscopy time was significantly longer in the complex removal of the Celect filter: 29.1 ± 12 min vs. 17.5 ± 10.3 (p 0.005). After one year, no recurrent pulmonary embolism was observed in both types of filters. Conclusions: The ALN filter had a significantly lower rate of tip and filter tip embedding, with no differences in complexity or removal success rate. There were significant differences in the fluoroscopy time consumed for standard and complex retrievals between both filters, with less time for the ALN filter.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gregorio et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Venous thromboembolic disease requiring temporary inferior vena cava filter implantation (n=100). ALN inferior vena cava filter vs. Celect inferior vena cava filter was evaluated on Complex filter retrieval (requiring a technique or device other than the standard 11 Fr loop and sheath) (p=0.249). ALN and Celect IVC filters achieved 100% retrieval success with no significant difference in complex retrieval rates (10% vs. 18%, p=0.249), though ALN had less tip embedment (8% vs. 24%, p=0.029).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: