Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 12, 2026

Quantifying Inferior Vena Cava Compliance and Distensibility in an In Vivo Ovine Model Using 3D Angiography
Published on: April 26, 2024
Prospective randomized study comparing the clinical outcomes between inferior vena cava Greenfield and TrapEase
Fred Usoh1, Anil Hingorani, Enrico Ascher
1Division of Vascular Services, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY 11219, USA.
Insights
The Greenfield filter showed a lower rate of symptomatic inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombosis compared to the TrapEase filter in patients with deep venous thrombosis. This randomized study highlights filter choice implications for IVC filter thrombosis.
Area of Science:
- Vascular Surgery
- Interventional Radiology
- Cardiology
Background:
- Anticoagulation is standard for deep venous thrombosis (DVT).
- Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are used when anticoagulation fails or is contraindicated.
- Limited comparative data exists for popular IVC filters like Greenfield and TrapEase.
Purpose of the Study:
- To prospectively compare clinical outcomes of Greenfield and TrapEase IVC filters.
- To evaluate differences in access-site thrombosis, filter thrombosis, and symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE).
Main Methods:
- A randomized study of 156 patients comparing Greenfield (n=84) and TrapEase (n=72) IVC filters.
- Infrarenal filter placement with angiographic guidance.
- Follow-up included serial duplex imaging, clinical evaluation for up to 2 years.
Main Results:
- Symptomatic IVC/IV thrombosis occurred in 6.94% of TrapEase patients versus 0% in Greenfield patients (P=.019).
- No filter migration, misplacement, or IVC perforation observed.
- Overall mortality was 42.3%; 30-day mortality was 13.5%.
Conclusions:
- The TrapEase filter is associated with a higher rate of symptomatic IVC/IV thrombosis.
- The TrapEase filter may have a role in selected coagulopathic patients.
- This is the first randomized prospective IVC filter comparison study.
Objective:
Although anticoagulation remains the mainstay of treatment for deep venous thrombosis, the use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters when anticoagulation has failed or when contraindicated remains a safe and effective treatment. Greenfield (Boston Scientific, Natick, Mass) and TrapEase (Cordis, Bridgewater, NJ) filters are arguably among the most popular filtration devices. The Greenfield filter (12F introducer) has been in use for >30 years and has been well studied. The TrapEase filter (6F introducer) has been used since 2000, with a limited number of studies. Good guidelines to help determine which filter to use in any given situation are lacking; therefore, this randomized study prospectively compared the clinical outcomes (access-site thrombosis, filter thrombosis, and symptomatic pulmonary embolism [PE]) between these filters.
Methods:
Between July 2006 and November 2008, 156 patients (63 men, 93 women; mean age, 75 years; range, 38-101 years) were randomized: 84 to Greenfield and 72 to TrapEase IVC filter insertion in the infrarenal position using angiographic guidance. Postoperative follow-up comprised serial lower extremity and IVC/iliac vein (IV) duplex imaging (78.2%) at day 1, week 1, every 3 months for the first year, and every 6 months for the second year; clinical evaluation, and clinic visits. During this period, 349 patients (143 men, 206 women; mean age, 75 years; range, 24-96 years) were not randomized.
Result:
The indications for filter placement, in the 156 randomized patients, were gastrointestinal bleeding, 37; intracranial hemorrhage, 12; free-floating clot, 19; failure of anticoagulation, 29; PE, 27; prophylactic, 4; and others, 32. During a mean 12-month follow-up (range, 0-39 months), symptomatic IVC/IV thrombosis developed in five patients (6.94%) in the TrapEase group and none in the Greenfield group (P = .019). No filter migration, access-site thrombosis, misplacement, or IVC perforation occurred. Recurrent PE was suspected in one of the five patients with IVC/IV thrombosis. Overall mortality was 42.3% (66 patients), and 30-day mortality was 13.5% (21 patients: 10 TrapEase, 11 Greenfield). The study was initially designed to recruit 360 patients in both TrapEase and Greenfield filters in 2 years to demonstrate any statistical significance but was prematurely concluded due to the interim results.
Conclusion:
A higher rate of symptomatic IVC/IV thrombosis is associated with TrapEase filter placement. However, the TrapEase filter still has a selective clinical role in the prevention of thromboembolism in selected patients who are coagulopathic. This is the first randomized prospective study comparing IVC filters since their inception in 1967.
Related Concept Videos
Venous Thrombosis III: Interprofessional Care
Venous Thrombosis II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Hemodialysis I: Introduction
