In vivo evaluation of the adjustable temporary venous spring filter and the RF02 temporary filter: comparative study.

Rationale and Objectives. The authors performed this study to compare the in vivo efficacies of the temporary venous spring filter and the RF02 filter in an animal model. Materials and Methods. Either the spring filter or the RF02 filter was placed in the inferior vena cava of 10 pigs each, and two clots (5 × 20 mm) were funneled into the filters at 1-hour intervals. The second clots were funneled without removing the first clots captured by the filters. Clot-trapping ability, caval occlusion associated with the clot-trapping procedure, arterial blood gas concentrations, and changes in arterial and iliac venous pressures were evaluated. Results. Placement of the RF02 filter caused elevation of iliac venous pressure with a maximum of 2.2 mm Hg (median) ( n = 13, P = .003). Placement of the spring filter parallel to venous flow enabled capture of 90% (nine of 10) and 100% (six of six) of the first and second clots, respectively. The RF02 filter captured clots consistently. The difference between filters was not statistically significant. Both filters equally contributed to elevation of iliac venous pressure (median, 9.3 and 7.2 mm Hg [ n = 9] with the spring filter and RF02 filter, respectively). Caval occlusion occurred in 17% (one of six) and 67% (six of nine) of animals after two clots were trapped in the spring filter and RF02 filter, respectively ( P = .06). Other parameters were not influenced by the clot-trapping procedure. Conclusion. Although a larger version should be developed and better stability of the filter is needed, the spring filter proved to be an efficient filtering device and had a lower rate of caval occlusion compared with the RF02 filter.