Skip to content

Comparison Between Two Optional IVC Filters Regardind Ease of Use,Complications and Outcome

Prospective Comparison Between OptEase and Gunter-Tulip

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00588757
Enrollment
100
Registered
2008-01-09
Start date
2008-03-31
Completion date
2009-03-31
Last updated
2008-01-09

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Deep Vein Thrombosis, Trauma

Keywords

IVC filters, Trauma, Dwell time

Brief summary

OptEase filters are easier to retrieve but the dwell time is shorter than the Gunter filters. There are more thrombi on the OptEase than on the Gunter at the time of retrieval. OptEase filter has a better infitration capabillity due to its diamond shape. OptEase filters will hjave more IVC occlusions as a complication.

Detailed description

We will isert the two filters blindly. We will follow the patients clinically and if needed we will add imaging exams. We will try to retrieve most filters.

Interventions

DEVICEOptease IVC filters

IVC filters will be implemented and evaluated for retrieval after 2-3 weeks.

DEVICEGunter-Tulip IVC filters

IVC filters will be implemented and evaluated for retrieval after 2-3 weeks.

Sponsors

Sheba Medical Center
Lead SponsorOTHER_GOV

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* All patients referred for filter insertion

Exclusion criteria

* Young age (\<18 years)

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
comparing the two filters1 year

Countries

Israel

Contacts

Primary ContactUri Rimon, MD
rimonu@sheba.health.gov.il97235302673

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026