Cavographic vs. cross-sectional measurement of the inferior vena cava diameter before filter placement: are we routinely oversizing?

Objective: A megacava (vena cava with a diameter of 28 mm or greater) requires a particular filter to avoid migration. However, caval morphologies are variable. As the inferior vena cava (IVC) usually adopts a circular geometry after a filter is inserted, this study aims (a) to classify caval geomet...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:European Radiology Vol. 29; no. 6; pp. 3281 - 3287
Autores principales: Xiao, Yu-dong, Zhang, Zi-shu, Ma, Cong
Formato: Journal Article
Publicado: Springer Nature Jun2019
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=136405174&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 136405174
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        09387994
        NPH
      jtl: European Radiology
      issn: 09387994
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jun2019
      vid: 29
      iid: 6
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
      place: New York, New York
    artinfo:
      ui:
        136405174
        136405174
        NLM30413963
        10.1007/s00330-018-5820-5
        NLM30413963
        136405174
      ppf: 3281
      ppct: 6
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: Cavographic vs. cross-sectional measurement of the inferior vena cava diameter before filter placement: are we routinely oversizing?
      aug:
        au:
          Xiao, Yu-dong
          Zhang, Zi-shu
          Ma, Cong
        affil: Department of Radiology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, No. 139 Middle Renmin Road, 410011, Changsha, China
      sug:
        subj:
          Tomography, X-Ray Computed
          Vena Cava Filters
          Vena Cava, Inferior
          Vena Cava, Inferior Anatomy and Histology
          Adolescence
          Equipment Design
          Young Adult
          Retrospective Design
          Aged
          Male
          Female
          Middle Age
          Aged, 80 and Over
          Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
          Vena Cava, Inferior Surgery
          Adult
          Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales
          Adolescent: 13-18 years
          Aged: 65+ years
          Middle Aged: 45-64 years
          Aged, 80 & over
          Adult: 19-44 years
          Male
          Female
      ab: Objective: A megacava (vena cava with a diameter of 28 mm or greater) requires a particular filter to avoid migration. However, caval morphologies are variable. As the inferior vena cava (IVC) usually adopts a circular geometry after a filter is inserted, this study aims (a) to classify caval geometry and orientation; (b) to compare discrepancy between anterioposterior projective diameter (PD) and circumference-based calculated diameter (CD) measurements on cross-sectional computed tomography (CT) images; (c) if a discrepancy exists, determine how often it can affect IVC filter selection.Methods: A total of 1503 patients were retrospectively reviewed. Caval morphology was classified. PD and CD were measured at infrarenal IVC. Differences between the PD and CD were assessed by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test or paired t test (if appropriate). The scatterplot of PD vs. CD was used to show whether one is consistently larger than the other.Results: The PD was significantly larger than the CD (22.3 ± 3.5 vs. 20.4 ± 2.8, p < 0.001). The caval morphologies were divided into five types. Type 1 was oval IVC oriented left-anterior-oblique to the horizontal line with an angle (n = 999, 66.5%), type 2 was round IVC (n = 49, 3.3%), type 3 was oval IVC with a vertical long axis (n = 8, 0.5%), type 4 was oval IVC with a horizontal long axis (n = 75, 5.0%), and type 5 was irregularly shaped IVC (n = 372, 24.7%).Conclusion: Patients with round IVC are rare. Measurement of CD may be better to assess maximum IVC diameter compared with PD for the purpose of IVC filter placement.Key Points: • Five types of IVC orientation are described in this paper: type 1 (n = 999, 66.5%), type 2 (n = 49, 3.3%), type 3 (n = 8, 0.5%), type 4 (n = 75, 5.0%), and type 5 (n = 372, 24.7%). • The incidence of megacava (vena cava with a diameter of 28 mm or greater) measured on anterioposterior projective imaging may be overestimated. • As an IVC will adopt a circular geometry following filter placement, circumference-based calculated diameter may be an appropriate approach for caval size determination.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N