Late removal of retrievable caval filters.

The advent of retrievable caval filters was a game changer in the sense, that the previously irreversible act of implanting a medical device into the main venous blood stream of the body requiring careful evaluation of the pros and cons prior to execution suddenly became a "reversible" procedure where potential hazards in the late future of the patient lost most of their weight at the time of decision making. This review was designed to assess the rate of success with late retrieval of so called retrievable caval filters in order to get some indication about reasonable implant duration with respect to relatively "easy" implant removal with conventional means, i.e., catheters, hooks and lassos. A PubMed search (www.pubmed.gov) was performed with the search term "cava filter retrieval after 30 days clinical", and 20 reports between 1994 and 2013 dealing with late retrieval of caval filters were identified, covering approximately 7,000 devices with 600 removed filters. The maximal duration of implant reported is 2,599 days and the maximal implant duration of removed filters is also 2,599 days. The maximal duration reported with standard retrieval techniques, i.e., catheter, hook and/or lasso, is 475 days, whereas for the retrievals after this period more sophisticated techniques including lasers, etc. were required. The maximal implant duration for series with 100% retrieval accounts for 84 days, which is equivalent to 12 weeks or almost 3 months. We conclude that retrievable caval filters often become permanent despite the initial decision of temporary use. However, such "forgotten" retrievable devices can still be removed with a great chance of success up to three months after implantation. Conventional percutaneous removal techniques may be sufficient up to sixteen months after implantation whereas more sophisticated catheter techniques have been shown to be successful up to 83 months or more than seven years of implant duration. Tilting, migrating, or misplaced devices should be removed early on, and replaced if indicated with a device which is both, efficient and retrievable.

PFO closure vs. medical therapy in cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess whether patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure is superior to medical therapy in preventing recurrence of cryptogenic ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). METHODS: We searched PubMed for randomized trials which compared PFO closure with medical therapy in cryptogenic stroke/TIA using the items: "stroke or cerebrovascular accident or TIA" and "patent foramen ovale or paradoxical embolism" and "trial or study". RESULTS: Among 650 potentially eligible articles, 3 were included including 2303 patients. There was no statistically significant difference between PFO-closure and medical therapy in ischemic stroke recurrence (1.91% vs. 2.94% respectively, OR: 0.64, 95%CI: 0.37-1.10), TIA (2.08% vs. 2.42% respectively, OR: 0.87, 95%CI: 0.50-1.51) and death (0.60% vs. 0.86% respectively, OR: 0.71, 95%CI: 0.28-1.82). In subgroup analysis, there was significant reduction of ischemic strokes in the AMPLATZER PFO Occluder arm vs. medical therapy (1.4% vs. 3.04% respectively, OR: 0.46, 95%CI: 0.21-0.98, relative-risk-reduction: 53.2%, absolute-risk-reduction: 1.6%, number-needed-to-treat: 61.8) but not in the STARFlex device (2.7% vs. 2.8% with medical therapy, OR: 0.93, 95%CI: 0.45-2.11). Compared to medical therapy, the number of patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) was similar in the AMPLATZER PFO Occluder arm (0.72% vs. 1.28% respectively, OR: 1.81, 95%CI: 0.60-5.42) but higher in the STARFlex device (0.64% vs. 5.14% respectively, OR: 8.30, 95%CI: 2.47-27.84). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis does not support PFO closure for secondary prevention with unselected devices in cryptogenic stroke/TIA. In subgroup analysis, selected closure devices may be superior to medical therapy without increasing the risk of new-onset AF, however. This observation should be confirmed in further trials using inclusion criteria for patients with high likelihood of PFO-related stroke recurrence.

Atrial assist device, a new alternative to lifelong anticoagulation?

OBJECTIVE: Atrial fibrillation is a very common heart arrhythmia, associated with a five-fold increase in the risk of embolic strokes. Treatment strategies encompass palliative drugs or surgical procedures all of which can restore sinus rhythm. Unfortunately, atria often fail to recover their mechanical function and patients therefore require lifelong anticoagulation therapy. A motorless volume displacing device (Atripump) based on artificial muscle technology, positioned on the external surface of atrium could avoid the need of oral anticoagulation and its haemorrhagic complications. An animal study was conducted in order to assess the haemodynamic effects that such a pump could provide. METHODS: Atripump is a dome-shape siliconecoated nitinol actuator sewn on the external surface of the atrium. It is driven by a pacemaker-like control unit. Five non-anticoagulated sheep were selected for this experiment. The right atrium was surgically exposed, the device sutured and connected. Haemodynamic parameters and intracardiac ultrasound (ICUS) data were recorded in each animal and under three conditions; baseline; atrial fibrillation (AF); atripump assisted AF (aaAF). RESULTS: In two animals, after 20 min of AF, small thrombi appeared in the right atrial appendix and were washed out once the pump was turned on. Assistance also enhanced atrial ejection fraction. 31% baseline; 5% during AF; 20% under aaAF. Right atrial systolic surfaces (cm2) were; 5.2 +/- 0.3 baseline; 6.2 +/- 0.1 AF; 5.4 +/- 0.3 aaAF. CONCLUSION: This compact and reliable pump seems to restore the atrial "kick" and prevents embolic events. It could avoid long-term anticoagulation therapy and open new hopes in the care of end-stage heart failure.