Key result
ALN and Celect IVC filters show similar complex retrieval rates despite less tip embedment with ALN.
Why the study?
The study was designed to compare IVC Celect and ALN filters regarding their efficacy, retrievability, and 1-year follow-up after retrieval.
Does the ALN inferior vena cava filter reduce filter retrieval complexity and device-related complications compared with the Celect filter in patients with venous thromboembolic disease requiring temporary IVC filtration?
RCT (n=100)
Single-blind (patients and clinical follow-up interventional radiologists were blinded; performing radiologists were not blinded)
Random allocation sequence generated using Research Randomizer version 4.0 (1:1 to ALN or Celect group)
Yes
Does the ALN inferior vena cava filter reduce filter retrieval complexity and device-related complications compared with the Celect filter in patients with venous thromboembolic disease requiring temporary IVC filtration?
Both ALN and Celect retrievable IVC filters achieved 100% retrieval success with no significant difference in complex retrieval rates, but the ALN filter demonstrated significantly less filter tip embedment, greater subjective ease of removal, and shorter retrieval fluoroscopy times.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
ALN and Celect filters show similar complex retrieval rates; extends RCT evidence favoring ALN for reduced tip embedment in temporary IVC filtration.
The purpose of this study is to compare IVC Celect and ALN filters in regard to their efficacy, retrievability, and 1-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 together with 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 inclination > 15º (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. Conclusion: 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 in 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 (n=100). ALN inferior vena cava filter vs. Celect inferior vena cava filter was evaluated on Complexity of filter recovery (defined as requiring a technique or device other than the standard 11 Fr loop and sheath) (p=0.249). ALN and Celect IVC filters had similar complex retrieval rates (10.0% vs 18.0%, p=0.249) and 100% retrieval success, with lower tip embedment for ALN (8.0% vs 24.0%, p=0.029).
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: