[14] Long-term risk factors must be considered as well, to include life expectancy of more than six months following insertion, and the ability of the patient to comply with anticoagulation therapy.

[5] The decision to use a filter that is temporary vs permanent basically is tied to the expected duration of time that protection is needed to prevent pulmonary emboli from passing to the heart and lungs.

Which is why the Society of Interventional Radiology created a multidisciplinary panel that developed the following guidelines to see if someone qualifies for implantation:[citation needed] These are patients that should strongly consider having IVC filter placement, as they are at greatest risk of pulmonary embolus.

Because of this, the Society of Interventional Radiology created a multidisciplinary panel that developed the following guidelines to see if someone qualifies for removal:[5] An IVC filter, just by doing its job properly (catching embolic material), can eventually fill up with embolic material and cause a circulatory impairment that may warrant revision with vascular surgery (new filter, stent additions, or otherwise).

[18] In August, 2010, the FDA released an Initial Communication on the Risk and Adverse events associated with Long Term use of an inferior vena cava filter.

Much of the medical community believes that this large number of adverse events is related to the heart filter remaining in place for longer than necessary.

Most notably: Even though the cases above are the exception, and not the rule, most radiologists object to doing prophylactic filter insertions in patients who do not have thromboembolic diseases.

Rarely will one find an MRI Not Safe IVC filter, as most of the steel, and other ferromagnetic material devices have been discontinued via the FDA.

[34][35][36][37][38][39] Several animal studies have even used "real-time" MR for the placement of IVC filters to check for rotation, sheering, and other artifacts.

In patients who have been treated with a weakly ferromagnetic IVC filter (Gianturco bird nest IVC filter [Cook], stainless steel Greenfield vena cava filter [Boston Scientific]), it is advised that the patient wait at least six weeks before undergoing an MR examination (because these older devices initially may not be anchored as firmly in place as other devices discussed in the present context), unless there is a strong clinical indication to perform the MR examination sooner after implantation, and as long as there is no reason to suspect that the device is not positioned properly or that it is not firmly in place.

Rarely, ultrasound-guided placement is preferred in the setting of contrast allergy, chronic kidney disease, and when patient immobility is desired.

[48] In 2005 that the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) convened a multidisciplinary conference to address the clinical application of nonpermanent vena cava filters.

Newer designs, and developments in techniques mean that some filters can now be left in for prolonged periods and retrievals after a year are now being reported.