Supply Costs in Complex and Routine Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval: 10 Years' Data from a Single Center

PURPOSE:To characterize the medical supply costs associated with inferior vena cava filter retrieval (IVCFR) using endobronchial forceps (EFs), a snare, or Recovery Cone (RC). MATERIALS AND METHODS:In total, 594 of 845 IVCFRs attempted at a tertiary referral hospital between October 1, 2012, and June 20, 2022 were categorized by intended retrieval strategy informed by, rotational cavography as follows: (a) EF (n = 312) for tilted or tip-embedded/strut-embedded filters and for long-dwelling closed-cell filters and (b) a snare (n = 255) or (c) RC (n = 27) for other well-positioned filters with or mostly without hooks, respectively. List prices of relevant supplies at time of retrieval were obtained or, rarely, estimated using a standard procedure. Contrast use, fluoroscopic time, filter type, dwell time, and patient age and sex were recorded. Mean between-group cost differences were estimated by linear regression, adjusting for date. Additional models evaluated filter type, dwell time, and patient-level effects. RESULTS:Of the 594 IVCFRs, 591 were successful, whereas 2 EF and 1 snare retrievals failed. Moreover, 4 EF retrievals were successful with a snare and 2 with smaller EF, 12 snare retrievals were successful with EF, 1 RC retrieval was successful with a snare and 2 with EF. Principal model indicated a significantly lower mean cost of EF ($564.70, SE ± 9.75) than that of snare ($811.29, SE ± 10.83; P < .0001) and RC ($1,465.48, SE ± 47.12; P < .0001) retrievals. Adjusted models yielded consistent results. Had all retrievals been attempted with EF, estimated undiscounted full-period supplies savings would be $87,201.51. CONCLUSIONS:EFs are affordable for complex IVCFR, and extending their use to routine IVCFR could lead to considerable cost savings.