Guide wire entrapment by inferior vena cava filters: An experimental study

BACKGROUND: In situ vena cava filters are at risk for complications with the use of J-tipped guide wires. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of two commonly used J-tipped guide wires on the stability of the four most recently released vena cava filters in an in vitro flow model. STUDY DESIGN: Four filters (OptEase [F1],GantherTulip [F2],VenaTechLP [F3], and Recovery [F4]) were inserted into an in vitro flow model. Two J-tipped guide wires (0.032-inch [GW-1], 0.035-inch [GW-2]) were passed through each filter (n = 50 passes per wire) for a distance of 10 cm. The inserter was blind as to the effects of the wire. The filters were monitored by an independent observer for adverse events occurring between the filters and the guide wires. These were defined as: migrations (> 1 cm), change of position (tilt > 10 degrees), and entrapment of the wire (unable to remove wire). Descriptive statistics, chi-square, and Fisher's exact test were used (p < 0.05 considered significant). RESULTS: GW-1 resulted in a lower incidence of entrapment, migration, and tilt for all filters compared with GW-2 (F1, p = 0.003; F2, p < 0.000 1; F3, p < 0.000 1; F4, p = 0.0004). GW-1 resulted in entrapment in 0%, migration in 7.5%, and tilt in 10.5% of insertions. GW-2 resulted in entrapment in 1%, migration in 26.5%, and tilt in 5.5% of insertions. The incidence of adverse events for GW-1 was significantly different compared with all filters (F1, 0%; F2, 46%; F3, 4%; and F4, 22%; p < 0.0001). Similarly, the incidence of adverse events for GW-2 was significantly different when evaluating all filters (F1, 12%; 12, 48%; F3, 22%; F4 60%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The smaller-diameter guide wire resulted in a decreased incidence of adverse events for all filters, but there is still risk for complications. Knowledge of potential complications associated with vena cava filters and the postinsertion use of guide wires are essential to avoid potential mishaps.