Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are deployed in patients who develop, or are at high risk of developing, acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) when anticoagulation is inappropriate or unsuccessful [1]. It is recommended practice to retrieve the filter as soon aspracticable(Fig. 1) when the contraindication to anticoagulation is temporary, orfuture risk of pulmonary embolus is acceptably low [2].Failure to retrieve temporary filters can lead to long-term complications - for example, thrombus developing within the filter (Fig. 2andFig. 3). With increasing use of IVC filters, a robust...

Patient population: Data retrospectively collected on allpatients referred for IVC filter insertion within a 2.5 year period (January 2015 to July 2017). These cases were followed up until the filter was retrieved, or for a minimum period of 6 months post-insertion. Exclusion criteria - requestscancelled/rejected by radiology, patients deceased before filter insertion. Data acquisition: Patient demographics: age, sex, referring specialty Retrieval: retrieval rates, time to retrieval, associated complications Non-retrieval: non-retrieval rates, underlying reasons, cases lost to follow-up Bookingof retrieval date The above information wascollated from...

Patient demographics (overall): A total of 94 IVC filters were inserted over the study period. This figure includes filtersre-instated in 2 patients after initial removal (both with VTEs and ongoing requirement for surgery). 51 (54.3%) of patients were male Fig. 4, and the age range 17-91 years (median age 64) as in Fig. 5. The majority of referrals came from the surgical specialities (Fig. 6), probably due to the original cause of admission being surgical in nature e.g. polytrauma (example, Fig. 7, Fig. 8 ),...

From the total number of IVC filter insertions, 63.8% were retrieved. 29.8% of filters were not retrieved for aspecified clinical reason. The remaining6.4% of filters in-situ were lost to follow-up. Despite the majority of patients having no contra-indications to retrieval at the time of filter insertion, only approximately 53% of patients (excluding deaths and those not clinically indicated) had dates booked for retrieval at the time of filter insertion. An original study at our institution by Lee et al [3] revealed 21.4% of filters inserted...

Department of Radiology St George's Hospital Blackshaw Road, Tooting London SW17 0QT E-mail: [email protected]

[1] Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe, Quality Improvement Guidelines for Percutaneous Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement for the Prevention of Pulmonary Embolism[Internet]. 2009 [cited 2017 Dec 06] Available from: https://eu-csite-storage-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/www-cirse-org/files/files/SOP/2009/SOP_CIRSE_2009_Percutaneous%20Inferior%20Vena%20Cava%20Filter%20Placement%20for%20the%20Prevention%20of%20Pulmonary%20Embolism.pdf [2] Kaufman JA, Kinney TB, Streiff MB, Sing RF, Proctor MC, Becker D et al., Guidelines for the Use of Retrievable and Convertible Vena Cava Filters: Report from the Society of Interventional Radiology Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference , J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006 Mar; 17(3):449-59 [3] Lee L, Taylor J, Munneke G, Morgan R,...