Urological complications caused by inferior vena cava filters: a systematic review.

Abstract

Introduction: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters act in preventing pulmonary embolisms (PE). Various complications have been reported with their use. However, a credible urological complication rate, filter characteristics, and clinical presentation has yet to be summarized. Thus, we reported these complications in the form of a systematic review.

Evidence acquisition: A search strategy was designed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE on February 10^th, 2022. The design of this search strategy did not include any language restrictions. The key words (and wildcard terms) used in the search strategy were urolog*, ureter*, bladder, kidney coupled with filter, inferior vena cava, and cava*. Inclusion criteria were: patients older than 18, with previous IVC filter placement, and urologic complication reported. Exclusion criteria were: patients younger than 18, no IVC filter placement, and no urologic complication reported. Other case series and reviews were excluded to avoid patient duplication.

Evidence synthesis: Thirty-five articles were selected for full-text screening. Thirty-seven patient cases were reviewed, and the median age was 53 (range: 21-92 years old). Abdominal and or flank pain was reported in 16 (43%) patients, hematuria was seen in eight (22%) and two (5%) patients died due to acute renal failure resulting from the urologic complications of the IVC filter. Indications for IVC filter placement were recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE), contraindication to or noncompliance with anticoagulant therapy. The IVC filters were infrarenal in 29 (78.4%) patients, suprarenal in five (13.5%) patients, not reported in two patients, and misplaced into the right ovarian vein in one patient. Three or more imaging modalities were obtained in 19 patients (51%) for planning. IVC filter removal was not performed in 17 (45.9%) patients, endovascular retrieval occurred in nine (24.3%) patients, and open removal was performed in seven (18.9%) patients, and tissue interposition was performed in two (5.4%) patients. One patient did not have the management reported.

Conclusions: Urological complications caused by IVC filters although rare, are likely underreported, require extensive workup, and pose surgical challenges. Due to their complex management, filter retrieval should be planned for as soon as feasible, and plans should be made as early as during the IVC filter implant. For those that do develop complications, clinical judgement must be exercised in management, and open surgical, endovascular or even conservative management strategies can be viable options and should be discussed in a multidisciplinary setting.