📊 Evidence-Based Reference

Percutaneous Greenfield Vena Cava Filter System

Medi-Tech

Compare similar devices

Summary: The percutaneous Greenfield vena cava filter system is a device used to prevent pulmonary embolism by trapping blood clots in the inferior vena cava. Key evidence highlights its efficacy in preventing recurrent embolisms with some reported complications.

FDA Clearance Information

Pathway ? 510(k)
Number ? K852097 ↗
Decision Date ? November 1, 1985
Product Code ? DTK Filter, Intravascular, Cardiovascular
Device Class ? Class 2
Evidence ? 22 studies

The percutaneous Greenfield vena cava filter system was cleared by the FDA through the 510(k) pathway on November 1, 1985. It is manufactured by Medi-Tech and classified as a Class 2 device.

What It Is

The percutaneous Greenfield vena cava filter system is a medical device designed to prevent pulmonary embolism by capturing thrombi in the inferior vena cava. It is used in patients at risk of thromboembolic events.

FDA-Cleared Indications

  • Prevention of pulmonary embolism by trapping thrombi in the inferior vena cava.
  • Use in patients at risk for pulmonary embolism when anticoagulant therapy is contraindicated or ineffective.

Clinical Applications

  • Percutaneous placement in the inferior vena cava for pulmonary embolism protection.
  • Protection from pulmonary embolism in patients with venous thromboembolism who cannot receive anticoagulation.
  • Use when pulmonary embolism risk persists despite anticoagulant treatment.

Reported off-label uses

  • Prophylactic placement in selected patients at exceptionally high risk for venous thromboembolism who do not have documented acute venous thromboembolism.
  • Use for prevention of pulmonary embolism in selected high-risk trauma or surgical patients when the expected benefit is judged to outweigh device-related risks.

Off-label use: these uses are reported in practice or the literature but are not part of the FDA-cleared indications. Physicians may use a cleared device off-label based on their medical judgment; the manufacturer may not promote off-label uses.

Evidence Summary

The available literature includes a mix of prospective and retrospective studies, case series, and experimental evaluations, with a total of 10 studies ranging from 1993 to 1999.

Reported Outcomes

Published studies report that the Greenfield filter effectively reduces the incidence of recurrent pulmonary embolism. In a study with 39 patients, only 2 cases of recurrent embolism were noted. The filter also demonstrated a high survival probability over a one-year follow-up.

Safety Profile

Reported complications include entrapment of guidewires during central venous catheter placement and instances of filter thrombosis. Some studies noted filter fragmentation and displacement, although the Greenfield filters generally remained intact.

Evidence Limitations

The evidence is limited by the small sample sizes and the retrospective nature of some studies. Further research is needed to evaluate long-term outcomes and compare the efficacy of different filter designs.

Practical Considerations

  • The filter is intended for placement in the inferior vena cava, usually through percutaneous venous access with fluoroscopic imaging.
  • Available filter sizes and delivery-system dimensions depend on the specific model and labeling; vessel diameter should be assessed before placement.
  • The device is a permanent vena cava filter unless the specific model labeling states otherwise; retrieval should not be assumed.
  • MRI safety and conditions depend on the exact filter model and its labeling. Confirm the model and current MRI instructions before scanning.
  • Potential complications include access-site bleeding, filter migration, malposition, vena cava perforation, filter thrombosis, recurrent pulmonary embolism, and long-term changes in the vena cava.

Procedures that use this device

Linked Studies (20)

PubMed • 2020

Greenfield stainless steel vena cava filters on computed tomography follow-up.

Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders

Other View Source →
PubMed • 2006

Numerical analysis of the hemodynamics and embolus capture of a greenfield vena cava filter.

Journal of biomechanical engineering

RCT|prospective|retrospective|case Series|other View Source →
PubMed • 2004

In vivo evaluation of the effects of gravitational force (+Gz) on over-the-wire stainless steel Greenfield inferior vena cava filter in swine.

Cardiovascular and interventional radiology

View Source →
PubMed • 1999

Entrapment of J-tip guidewires by Venatech and stainless-steel Greenfield vena cava filters during central venous catheter placement: percutaneous management in four patients.

Cardiovascular and interventional radiology

RCT|prospective|retrospective|case Series|other View Source →
PubMed • 1998

IVC filter tilt and asymmetry: comparison of the over-the-wire stainless-steel and titanium Greenfield IVC filters.

Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR

RCT|prospective|retrospective|case Series|other View Source →
PubMed • 1998

Suprarenal filter placement.

Journal of vascular surgery

RCT|prospective|retrospective|case Series|other View Source →
PubMed • 1997

Evaluation of a new percutaneous stainless steel Greenfield filter.

Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR

RCT|prospective|retrospective|case Series|other View Source →
PubMed • 1996

Successful retrieval of a titanium Greenfield vena cava filter embedded within its introducer sheath.

Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR

View Source →
PubMed • 1996

Caval interruption methods: comparison of options.

Seminars in vascular surgery

View Source →
PubMed • 1995

The new titanium Greenfield vena cava filter: initial experience and review.

Singapore medical journal

Case Series View Source →
PubMed • 1995

[Partial interruption of the inferior vena cava using a Greenfield titanium percutaneous filter. Present indications and evaluation].

Journal des maladies vasculaires

Prospective View Source →
PubMed • 1994

Management of deep vein thrombosis of the lower extremity in pregnancy.

The West Virginia medical journal

RCT|prospective|retrospective|case Series|other View Source →
PubMed • 1993

New retrievable percutaneous vena cava filter: experimental in vitro and in vivo evaluation.

Cardiovascular and interventional radiology

RCT|prospective|retrospective|case Series|other View Source →
PubMed • 1992

LGM vena cava filter: objective evaluation of early results.

Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR

View Source →
PubMed • 1990

Perforation of the inferior vena cava by a suprarenal Greenfield filter.

Radiology

View Source →
PubMed • 1990

Percutaneous inferior vena caval filters.

Radiology

RCT|prospective|retrospective|case Series|other View Source →
PubMed • 1989

Comparison of titanium and stainless steel, Greenfield vena caval filters.

Surgery

RCT|prospective|retrospective|case Series|other View Source →
PubMed • 1987

Percutaneous transfemoral placement of the Kimray-Greenfield vena cava filter.

Radiology

View Source →
PubMed • 1987

Experimental comparison of percutaneous vena caval devices: titanium Greenfield filter versus bird's nest filter.

Journal of vascular surgery

RCT|prospective|retrospective|case Series|other View Source →
PubMed • 1986

Percutaneous Kimray-Greenfield filter placement.

AJR. American journal of roentgenology

View Source →

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the clinical indications for the percutaneous Greenfield vena cava filter system?

The device is indicated for patients at risk of thromboembolic events, particularly when anticoagulation is contraindicated or ineffective.

What outcomes have been reported in clinical studies?

Studies have reported a reduction in recurrent pulmonary embolism and a high survival probability over a one-year follow-up.

What complications have been reported?

Complications reported include guidewire entrapment, filter thrombosis, and rare instances of filter fragmentation and displacement.

Disclaimer: This page compiles publicly available regulatory and published clinical evidence for educational reference. It does not constitute medical advice, product endorsement, or a recommendation for clinical use. Always consult manufacturer documentation and clinical judgment for patient care decisions.

📬 The IR Device Brief

One email a month: new FDA clearances, recalls and device pages in vascular & interventional radiology.

We'll email you a link to confirm. Unsubscribe any time.

Suggest edits

For manufacturers and their teams. Each field shows what the page says now: add, remove or rewrite anything, and leave the rest as is. LA Vascular reviews every change before it goes live.

About you