Comparison of Caval Filters in the Management of Venous Thromboembolism

Max Wingerd, MD; Victor M. Bernhard, MD; Frank Maddison, MD; Jonathan B. Towne, MD
Arch Surg. 1978;113(11):1264-1271. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1978.01370230054006.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

• Over a seven-year period, 38 Mobin-Uddin MU and 33 Kim-Ray Greenfield KG vena cava filters were inserted in 71 patients with no substantial complications or deaths directly related to the surgical procedure. Thirteen of the 16 early deaths were due to progression of associated diseases. The remaining three deaths were caused by pulmonary emboli and occurred in each instance after insertion of a MU filter. None of the 14 late deaths were related to the caval filter or sequellae of venous thrombosis. Inferior vena cava patency was objectively assessed in 36 patients by cavagram (22) or autopsy (14). Caval patency of 95% (18 of 19) in those with KG filters was significantly greater than the 47% patency (eight of 17) seen with MU devices (P <.01). Gray scale ultrasound, when successful in visualizing the vena cava, was found to be a reliable indicator of patency. Venous stasis phenomena were noted in 50% of those with a patent cava and in 70% of those with an occlusion. Thus, it is not surprising that edema was found in only 38% of the patients as compared with 75% of the patients with the MU filter.

Both of these devices are safe to insert. However, on the basis of superior patency rate, lower incidence of stasis phenomena, and the absence of recurrent pulmonary emboli in our series, we prefer insertion of a KG filter when caval interruption is required.

(Arch Surg 113:1264-1271, 1978)


Sign In to Access Full Content

Don't have Access?

Register and get free email Table of Contents alerts, saved searches, PowerPoint downloads, CME quizzes, and more

Subscribe for full-text access to content from 1998 forward and a host of useful features

Activate your current subscription (AMA members and current subscribers)

Purchase Online Access to this article for 24 hours





Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.