Category Archives: IVC Filter News

How to join the IVC filter litigation at no cost to you

Many patients who received a retrievable IVC filter to reduce their risk of blood clots and pulmonary embolism are pursing financial compensation from C.R. Bard, Cook Medical, and other IVC filter device makers for serious and potentially life-threatening side effects.

If you have received an IVC filter that was meant to be retrieved, but has not, or if you believe you have been harmed by alleged IVC filter side effects, you too may be eligible for financial compensation for your injuries, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other damages.

The IVC filter litigation is still in its early stages, and our product liability attorneys are investigating new claims on behalf of injured individuals every day, but it’s important to note that there is a statute of limitations in place for each state, a law that regulates the amount of time an individual has to pursue compensation for injuries from a medical product.

Why are lawsuits being filed against some makers of IVC filter devices

Hundreds of product liability lawsuits have already been brought against IVC filter manufacturers C.R. Bard and Cook Medical, alleging negligence, design defects, failure to warn, manufacturing defects, negligent misrepresentation and breach of implied warranty on the part of the medical device makers. In February 2015, just 10 days after trial began, C.R. Bard settled a product liability lawsuit filed by an IVC filter recipient who alleged that the Bard Recovery filter broke inside his body. According to allegations raised in the IVC filter lawsuit, one of the filter struts, or legs, became separated from the device and traveled to his heart, perforating it. He subsequently required open heart surgery, after which he underwent a lengthy recovery.

It has been determined that inferior vena cava filters manufactured by C.R. Bard, Cook Medical and some other device IVC filter device companies may be defectively designed, and may expose patients to an unnecessary risk of serious side effects and in many cases actually have very little benefit to the recipients. Common complications include device fracture, perforation of the inferior vena cava, migration of the filter to other parts of the body and the filters being deemed difficult, impossible or dangerous to remove. In many cases it has been theorized that any retrievable device left in place longer than approximately 50 days is at serious risk for these complications and the longer they are left in the more dangerous they become.

How are IVC filters intended to work?

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are medical devices surgically inserted in the inferior vena cava – the largest vein in the body – to capture blood clots and prevent them from traveling to the heart and lungs and causing a pulmonary embolism (PE). IVC filters are often used in patients who are unable to take anticoagulant medications due to an adverse reaction or uncontrollable bleeding event, or for patients who have suffered recurrent deep vein thrombosis (DVT) while taking a blood-thinning medication. Retrievable IVC filters are designed to provide short-term protection against blood clots and pulmonary embolism, and are intended to be removed once the risk of PE has subsided.

FDA warnings for IVC filter recipients

Although retrievable IVC filters were developed in response to concerns about the long-term complications of permanent blood clot filters, which aren’t designed to be removed at all, the temporary filters have been linked to their fair share of problems, like damaging veins and migrating out of position after implantation. According to a 2010 safety announcement issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency had received 921 reports of adverse events involving IVC filters from 2005 to 2010, including 328 reports of device migration, 146 reports of embolization, 70 reports of vena cava perforation, and 56 reports of filter fracture.

According to the FDA’s safety alert, the agency “is concerned that retrievable IVC filters, intended for short-term placement, are not always removed once a patient’s risk for PE subsides.” The FDA also indicated that “known long term risks associated with IVC filters include but are not limited to lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT), filter fracture, filter migration, filter embolization and IVC perforation. In 2014, the FDA issued another IVC filter safety communication, this time advising that “implanting physicians and clinicians responsible for the ongoing care of patients with retrievable IVC filters consider removing the filter as soon as protection from pulmonary embolism is no longer needed.”

We can help you qualify for free legal representation from an expert IVC filter injury attorney

Some attorneys representing potential claimants in the IVC filter litigation offer free confidential consultations, which means you can discuss your case with a knowledgeable lawyer for fee, before you decide whether to move forward with your claim, and we can also generally connect you with a firm that operates on a contingency basis, which means only if you successfully recover damages from the medical device maker will your lawyer get paid. These cases are unique from class action cases in the sense that the plaintiff and not the attorney gets the majority of the winnings when there is a verdict or settlement in their favor. If you received an IVC filter in the past, and you have since suffered complications like filter migration, filter fracture, perforation of the inferior vena cava, or the IVC filter simply has not been removed within the appropriate amount of time, please contact us today at 877-959-1042 or by completing the form on this page to connect with an experienced IVC filter injury lawyer for legal assistance.

Permanent Versus Retrievable IVC Filters

There are two types of inferior vena cava filters: permanent and retrievable. Both filters are implanted using a catheter that is inserted through the skin in a large vein in the groin or neck and then advanced to the inferior vena cava in the abdomen, but the main difference between the two is that retrievable filters are designed for short-term protection, and are meant to be removed once the risk of pulmonary embolism has subsided. The most dangerous complications stemming from retrievable IVC filters occur when the devices are left in place for long periods of time, even after protection from pulmonary embolism is no longer needed.

Common IVC Filter Uses

Although anticoagulant therapy is typically the first line of defense for blood clots, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism, IVC filters may be a more appropriate treatment option for patients who have experienced recurrent DVTs while taking blood thinners, or for those who are unable to tolerate anticoagulant medications due to an adverse reaction, trauma, bleeding or recent surgery. Because of concerns over the long-term complications of permanent IVC filters, medical device makers began developing temporary filters, which are very similar in appearance to permanent filters, but which are designed to be removed once the risk of pulmonary embolism has subsided.

Potential Side Effects of IVC Filters

Despite their supposed improved safety profile over permanent filters, research has shown that removable IVC filters carry their own risk of serious side effects, including device migration, filter fracture, perforation of the inferior vena cava, and embolization of the device to the heart and lungs. In light of the potential for retrievable blood clot filters to cause severe and potentially life-threatening complications in users, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety communication in 2010, highlighting more than 900 adverse event reports submitted to the agency in connection with removable IVC filters during the previous five years. The FDA updated its safety alert in 2014, recommending that temporary IVC filters be removed within one to two months after being implanted, to reduce the risk of device complications.

A number of studies have confirmed the FDA’s blood clot filter warnings, and one study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2013 analyzed the failure rate of temporary IVC filters in 978 patients, indicating that when the filters remained in place longer than medically necessary, 18.3% of retrieval attempts failed and 7.8% of patients experienced venous thrombotic events, including 25 pulmonary emboli, all with the IVC filter in place. Some of the temporary IVC filters that have shown a potential to cause serious complications in users include C.R. Bard’s Recovery, G2, and G2 Express filters, which one study linked to a combined 12% rate of filter fracture side effects, and Cook Medical’s Gunther Tulip and Celect filters, which research has shown may be prone to migration and perforation complications.

IVC Filter Adverse Event Reports

IVC filter devices have been implicated in a growing number of reports of injuries and fatalities in recent years, and many patients who have suffered serious complications after being implanted with a blood clot filter are now filing lawsuits against the medical device makers, alleging that the companies intentionally withheld information about IVC filter side effects from consumers, medical professionals and the FDA, which is not only deceitful, but illegal. For patients presented with IVC filter treatment as a means of reducing their risk of blood clots or pulmonary embolism, it is extremely important to understand the different types of filters currently on the market and what risks they may pose for users.

Defective IVC Filters May Malfunction, Become Difficult to Remove

Product liability lawsuits over IVC filter migration and other complications continue to mount, and many of the complaints involve problems where the IVC filter migrated out of position and became embedded in internal organs, causing serious medical problems and making it difficult or impossible for the filter to be safely removed. If you have a defective IVC filter that has migrated out of position and cannot be removed, contact our knowledgeable product liability lawyers today to discuss the possibility of filing an IVC filter lawsuit against the device manufacturing company.

Filters May Become Embedded in Organs

Growing concerns have been raised recently about the safety and effectiveness of retrievable IVC filters, and according to allegations raised in recent product liability lawsuits, defective blood clot filters may become embedded inside patients’ internal organs, causing them to require surgery or adjunctive techniques to remove the filter. However, in some cases, doctors may be unable to retrieve the blood clot filter, which means the patient may face a continuing risk of problems from the device, including the potential for life-threatening side effects and the need for ongoing medical care to ensure the filter does not cause further injury.

Possible Side Effects of IVC Filters

IVC (inferior vena cava) filters are small, cage-like medical devices that doctors surgically insert into the inferior vena cava, a large vein that carries deoxygenated blood into the heart, to trap blood clots and prevent them from traveling to the heart or lungs. By doing so, IVC filters can reduce the risk of stroke and pulmonary embolism in patients with a heart condition called atrial fibrillation, which causes poor blood flow and can increase the risk of stroke. Unfortunately, a growing body of research has shown that IVC filters may be prone to failure, occurring when the filters migrate out of position, fracture, perforate the vena cava, or embolize to the heart.

Removing Retrievable Blood Clot Filters

One of the most serious complications of IVC filters occurs when the devices cannot be safely removed. In one new 10-year study published in the medical journal Pediatric Radiology in January 2016, researchers from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia found that it may be difficult for doctors to remove IVC filters from children, particularly when the filters tilt out of position or become embedded in internal organs. According to the researchers, a significant percentage of children involved in the study required adjunctive techniques to retrieve the IVC filters, often because the device had migrated out of its original position in the inferior vena cava. Adults, too, may face the risk of their blood clot filters being difficult or impossible to remove.

IVC Filter Warnings from the FDA

Although IVC filters first entered the market in 1979, it wasn’t until 2010, when the FDA issued its first warning about possible side effects of IVC filters, that the litigation over blood clot filter complications began to emerge. According to that FDA safety announcement, the agency had received more than 900 reports of adverse events linked to IVC filters like C.R. Bard’s Recovery filter, including 328 reports of filter migration, 146 reports of filter components breaking loose, 70 reports of vena cava perforation, and 56 reports of filter fracture. In 2014, the FDA issued another warning, this time advising doctors to remove retrievable IVC filters within one to two months after they are implanted, as long as the risk of pulmonary embolism has subsided.

Our IVC Filter Injury Lawyers Can Help

In the federal court system, there are currently several hundred lawsuits pending against C.R. Bard and Cook Medical over complications from the Recovery, G2, Celect and Gunther Tulip blood clot filters. If you believe you have been adversely affected by alleged IVC filter side effects, including instances where the filter cannot be removed by doctors, consult our experienced IVC filter injury lawyers today to discuss your possible compensation options. With a reputable product liability attorney on your side, you can protect your legal rights and seek fair and timely reimbursement for your losses.

IVC Filter Removal Specialist Says Devices “Should Have Been Recalled”

Potential Side Effects of IVC Filters

IVC filters like C.R. Bard’s Recovery and G2 series of filters are small spider-like devices implanted in the inferior vena cava to trap blood clots that may break free from the lower extremities and travel to the heart or lungs. In most cases, the placement of an IVC filter is meant to be temporary, and the FDA recommends that the devices be removed within one to two months after implantation, to reduce the risk of complications. However, many patients who received retrievable IVC filters in the past have suffered serious complications allegedly caused by the devices, including filter fracture, filter migration, filter embolization, and perforation of the vena cava.

IVC Filters Prone to Fracture, Failure

According to a growing body of research, IVC filters may be prone to fracture and migration, and also tend to be extremely difficult to remove, especially when they have tilted out of position or moved to other parts of the body. In one case of a damaged blood clot filter, 69-year-old Christopher Svedise of San Francisco, California received a Bard G2 IVC filter in 2010, the final year the filter was on the market. In October 2015, Svedise was informed by his doctor that his IVC filter had come loose and migrated from its original position, and was now dangerously close to his heart. Two surgeons refused to remove Svedise’s IVC filter, due to its precarious location, and so Dr. Kuo was called in to help.

Dr. Kuo has developed a special surgical method for removing damaged or defective IVC filters and broken fragments of filters that have fractured and embolized to the heart or lungs. During Svedise’s procedure, two fragments of the filter broke off and floated into the heart muscle, but Dr. Kuo and his team were able to remove them safely. According to Dr. Kuo, he has removed more than a thousand damaged IVC filters since 2006, most of which were manufactured by C.R. Bard. Unfortunately, some filters that have become damaged or migrated out of possible are difficult or impossible to remove, which may expose patients to an even greater risk of injury or death.

Bard May Have Known About IVC Filter Risks

The potential for IVC filters to cause serious and potentially life-threatening complications has been evident for years. In September 2015, an NBC News investigation revealed that executives at C.R. Bard knew about the dangers of the Bard Recovery filter, yet concealed these risks from the public, healthcare professionals and the FDA. And, instead of issuing a recall of its potentially defective Recovery filter, C.R. Bard simply replaced the device with a slightly modified version of the filter, the G2 and G2 Express series of filters. Furthermore, there is evidence that Bard committed criminal fraud in order to obtain approval from the FDA for the new filters.

Pursuing Compensation for IVC Filter Injuries

As Dr. Kuo says, “All of the data that we’ve seen in our own studies, as well as other clinician researchers’, is that this device consistently fractures, consistently causes major complications. The number of complications, the frequency of severe failures makes it obvious that it was never safe to be implanted. Whether it’s an ethical reason, a moral obligation, in the interest of public safety and patient safety, absolutely these devices should have been recalled.” If you believe you have been adversely affected by side effects of an IVC filter, you may be entitled to financial compensation for your injuries and medical expenses. Contact a knowledgeable product liability lawyer today for legal help.

NBC Investigation Warns of Deadly Risks Associated With IVC Filters for Blood Clots

According to the NBC News investigation, over the course of a decade, at least 27 deaths and approximately 300 other non-fatal problems have been associated with the Recovery IVC filter, one of the devices manufactured by Bard. The Recovery, a one-and-a-half-inch metal trap, was designed to sit inside a major vein, the vena cava, and block blood clots from traveling to the heart or lungs, where they can be fatal. Instead, in many cases the device is migrating, fracturing, perforating, or actually causing clogs instead of preventing clots and in some cases this has turned out to be deadly for the device recipients.

Dodi Froehlich, 45, had an IVC Filter implanted after severe injuries in a car accident put her at elevated risk for blood clots. The filter was intended to block clots from reaching her heart or lungs; instead, it nearly killed her.

Four months after the IVC filter implant, she developed a severe headache and passed out. “In that two seconds of being in the ambulance, I started flat-lining,” Froehlich told NBC News. Testing revealed a piece of the filter had broken off and pierced her heart, and she had to have emergency open-heart surgery.

“My family was notified,” she said. “The priest was brought in.” Fortunately, surgeons were able to remove the broken piece during emergency open-heart surgery and save Froelich’s life, but not all Recovery recipients have been so lucky.

In another example cited by the NBC investigation, Gloria Adams, then 55, was given an IVC filter after suffering a brain aneurysm in 2004. Her son Kevin Keech told the NBC investigators “everything was fine” when she was discharged from the hospital, but shortly after, she was dead. The autopsy showed that instead of the filter preventing a blood clot, the device was instead pushed into her heart by a clot, puncturing it. “I didn’t get many answers at that point,” Kevin said.

After problems with the Recovery IVC filters began, instead of pulling the device from the market, Bard hired a public-relations firm, Hill and Knowlton, which circulated a crisis management plan to the Bard management team, warning that “unfavorable press” could damage stock prices and have a negative impact on the company’s and products’ reputation.

Initially getting clearance from the FDA took more than one attempt. After the agency rejected an earlier application for the Recovery IVC filter device, Bard recruited a veteran regulatory specialist named Kay Fuller, to help give it another shot. NBC News reported that Fuller raised concerns about how Bard handled that application. According to Fuller, the company failed to provide her with important test results and that a clinical trial raised concerns.

Fuller told NBC, “I was pretty concerned there were going to be problems with this product.” However, when she voiced those concerns, she was told that she would be removed from the team if she continued to pursue the matter. “I was shocked,” she told the NBC investigation.
According to Fuller, she informed her superiors that she would not sign the application until the issues were resolved. Still, Bard submitted the application to the FDA with what clearly appeared to be Fuller’s signature.

“That’s not my signature,” Fuller told the NBC investigators when they showed her a copy of the document. A sample of her signature from that time is clearly different from the one submitted on the application.

That leads to the question, was her signature forged? “I will tell you I did not sign it,” Fuller told NBC, continuing that her name was signed on the application without her knowledge. Fuller said she resigned from Bard, but not before reporting her safety concerns to the FDA. “I never knew what they did after that,” she said.

The FDA won’t say if it acted on Fuller’s tip and denied requests for an interview. In a statement, it said it “takes very seriously” any complaints about “forgeries and device issues.”
Fuller is not the only one who has had concerns regarding this product and similar medical devices. According to attorney Ben Bertram, one of the leading litigation attorneys when it comes to IVC Filter injury lawsuits, there likely will be serious safety problems going forward with these devices. Bertram stated that upward of 250,000 IVC filters were implanted each year since 2012 and that with the retrievable filters, if they are not removed within a fairly finite period of time, a high percentage of the devices “may become difficult or impossible to retrieve”. Furthermore, there may be legal issues related to the retrieval kit also produced by Bard, as it was never itself approved for its use by the FDA.

With the recent news regarding the dangers associated with IVC filter implants and the questionable and tactics allegedly used by the manufacturers to get some of these devices to market, a number mass tort law firms are signing up alleged victims to be part of a potential case against the IVC filter device manufacturers. Signing up for to be part of suit is fairly easy on the part of the victims. Firms around the country are signing potential victims up now. To become part of a mass tort, there is generally no cost up front and the majority of the research and paperwork is done by the law firms making it a fairly simple process for the plaintiffs. To get a free case review to potentially become part of the potential lawsuit, contact the IVC Filter Legal Center or complete the quick form at http://www.ivcfilterlawsuit.info/ or call 888-733-9229 to determine your eligibility immediately.

Forged Signature May Have Helped Recovery Filter Gain Approval from FDA

Side Effects Allegedly Linked to Recovery Filter

In an interview with NBC News, Kay Fuller revealed that, not only did Bard fail to relay important safety performance test results to her in regards to the Recovery filter, the company also threatened to let her go if she pursued her questions about the safety of the medical device, which a confidential study commissioned by Bard had shown was associated with higher rates of relative risk for death, filter fracture and filter migration than all other filters on the market. “It was basically, you know, if you continue to pursue these questions, that I was going to be asked not to be on the team,” Fuller said during the interview. “And I was shocked.” Despite Bard’s threats, Fuller said she would not sign the Recovery application until the issues were resolved.

Bard Suspected of Forging Signature on Key Documents

Instead of addressing the problems with its Recovery IVC filter though, Bard went ahead and submitted its application to the FDA with what appears to be Fuller’s signature on it. “That’s not my signature,” Fuller told reporters from NBC News when shown a copy of the paperwork. According to the regulatory specialist, she reported her safety concerns to the FDA and resigned from Bard. “I never knew what they did after that.” What Bard did, is eventually receive approval from the FDA for its Recovery filter and go on to sell approximately 34,000 of the filters in the United States. Unfortunately, according to reports, over the course of ten years, the device was associated with 27 deaths and nearly 300 non-fatal injuries.

C.R. Bard Refused to Recall Recovery Implant

In total, about a quarter of a million IVC filters are implanted in patients at high risk for blood clots every year, most without incident, but Bard’s Recovery filter stood out from the very beginning as a potentially deadly device. Even as reports of serious injuries and fatalities involving the Recovery filter continued to climb though, Bard decided not to recall the device. Instead, the company continued to sell the implant until 2005, and then replaced it with a modified filter featuring a similar design but a new name, the G2. As of 2006, Bard’s own records estimated that more than 20,000 people were still walking around with Recovery filters, which have been linked to reports of filter fracture, filter migration, perforation of the vena cava and death.

Contact a Skilled IVC Filter Lawyer for Legal Help

In one example of a Recovery filter failing catastrophically, Gloria Adams, then 55, had the blood clot filter implanted following a brain aneurysm in 2004. She died just one week later, when a blood clot pushed the device into her heart. If you believe you or a loved one has been harmed by side effects of an IVC filter like Bard’s Recovery device, contact a skilled product liability lawyer today to discuss your legal options. You may be entitled to financial compensation for your injuries, medical bills, lost wages, diminished quality of life, pain and suffering, and other damages, which you can pursue by filing an IVC filter lawsuit against the device manufacturing company.

NBC Investigation Recap – Part 1 – Blood Clot Filter Used on Thousands of Americans May Be Linked to Life-Threatening Side Effects

NBC Investigation Recap – Part 3 – C.R. Bard Continued to Sell Potentially Deadly Blood Clot Filters

Blood Clot Filter Used on Thousands of Americans May Be Linked to Life-Threatening Side Effects

Risks of IVC Filter Injuries

According to a comprehensive investigation conducted by NBC News, the Bard Recovery filter was used on thousands of Americans before it was replaced with the similarly-designed G2 filter in 2005, and was linked to at least 27 deaths and approximately 300 non-fatal complications over the course of a decade. In one case, Dodi Froehlich, 45, received a Recovery filter after severe injuries she sustained in a car accident put her at a high risk for blood clots. Instead of protecting her from dangerous blood clots though, a piece of Froehlich’s Recovery filter broke off and pierced her heart, nearly killing her. She required emergency open-heart surgery, during which surgeons were able to remove the fractured filter.

IVC Filters and Wrongful Death

Unfortunately, other victims of IVC filter-related injuries haven’t been so lucky. Gloria Adams, 55 at the time, received a blood clot filter after suffering a brain aneurysm in 2004, and died just one week later. An autopsy showed that instead of the IVC filter capturing a clot and preventing it from traveling to her heart and lungs, a clot actually pushed the entire filter into her heart, puncturing it. Sadly, documents revealed in the ongoing IVC filter litigation suggest that C.R. Bard knew about problems with its Recovery filter, but instead of recalling the device, sold roughly 34,000 of the devices for nearly three years before replacing the filter with a modified version featuring a similar design, under the model name G2.

Bard Commissions Confidential Recovery Study

Around the time that C.R. Bard first became aware of problems with the Recovery blood clot filter, the company hired a public relations firm to protect its reputation, and retained an outside doctor to conduct a confidential study, which was eventually obtained by NBC News. According to the study findings, Bard’s Recovery filter had higher rates of relative risk for filter fracture, filter migration and death than all of its competitors. “Further investigation…is urgently warranted,” the doctor concluded. Still, Bard chose to conceal these problems from the public and the FDA, rather than issue the appropriate warnings, and continued to promote the IVC filter as a safe and effective way for patients who cannot tolerate blood thinners to prevent blood clots, pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.

Bard May Have Forged Signature on Key Document

C.R. Bard’s main argument in the face of significant criticism appears to be that all of its blood clot filters have been “appropriately cleared by FDA based on required and accurate documentation,” and that when used as intended, the devices demonstrate “significant benefits to patients.” What Bard would rather we didn’t know though, is that obtaining approval from the FDA for its IVC filter took more than one try. After federal regulators rejected its initial application for the Recovery filter, Bard hired Kay Fuller, a regulatory specialist, to prepare to try again. In our next segment covering the NBC News investigation, we’ll reveal how Bard may have forged Kay Fuller’s signature on a key document submitted to the FDA in pursuit of approval for the company’s Recovery IVC filter.

NBC Investigation Recap – Part 2 – Forged signature may have helped Bard Recovery IVC Filter gain FDA approval.

NBC Investigation Recap – Part 3 – C.R. Bard Continued to Sell Potentially Deadly Blood Clot Filters

Doctors Debate Safety of IVC Filters

Alleged IVC Filter Side Effects

IVC filters, also known as blood clot filters, are small, cage-like devices inserted into the inferior vena cava, the main vessel returning blood from the lower half of the body to the heart, to trap blood clots and prevent them from reaching the lungs and causing a serious complication like pulmonary embolism. In most cases, IVC filters are used in patients who are unable to take anticoagulant medications, or for whom anticoagulant therapy is unsuccessful, and while some filters are designed to be permanent, retrievable IVC filters are designed to be removed once the risk of pulmonary embolism has subsided. The FDA has warned in the past though, that IVC filters may pose a risk of serious side effects for patients, and the agency has received reports of serious adverse events associated with blood clot filters, including filter fracture, device migration, embolization and perforation of the inferior vena cava.

IVC Filters May Provide a “False Sense of Security”

In an effort to better understand the possible risks of IVC filters, Drs. Rajasekhar and Stavas debated in the Ash Clinical News article the safety of the medical devices, which have increased in use since the 1970s, despite the lack of a documented increase in patient survival rates. According to Dr. Stavas, for many medical professionals, IVC filters have become a “crutch for managing patients with thrombosis, providing a false sense of security,” when the devices actually have the potential to migrate out of position, or fracture and send fragments of the filter to the heart, causing a pulmonary embolism, the very event the medical devices are designed to prevent. Says Dr. Rajasekhar, “An IVC filter does nothing to decrease a person’s inherent tendency to develop a clot. In my practice, I see many patients who are predisposed to thrombosis…and placing a potentially thrombogenic foreign device into their veins does them a disservice in the long term.”

Doctors Call for Stricter IVC Filter Guidelines

According to Drs. Rajasekhar and Stavas, there “always will be a small subset of patients with an absolute contraindication for anticoagulation who would benefit from IVC filters,” but the doctors also agreed that the medical devices can pose serious risks for some patients, especially retrievable blood clot filters that are left in place for too long. In a safety communication released in May 2014, the FDA noted that “retrievable IVC filters, when placed for a short-term risk of pulmonary embolism, are not always removed once the risk subsides,” which may put patients at risk for serious and potentially life-threatening complications. Both Drs. Rajasekhar and Stavas recommend that more stringent guidelines be developed for the use of IVC filters, taking into account the inherent risks of filter placement, failure and retrieval.

Contact an Experienced IVC Filter Lawyer Today

In its May 2014 safety announcement, the FDA recommends that “implanting physicians and clinicians responsible for the ongoing care of patients with retrievable IVC filters consider removing the filter as soon as protection from pulmonary embolism is no longer needed,” to reduce the risk of filter fracture, filter migration, filter embolization, and other complications. If you believe you have been adversely affected by side effects of an IVC filter, like the Bard Recovery, Bard G2, Cook Celect or Cook Gunther Tulip filter, contact an experienced IVC filter lawyer as soon as possible for legal help. With a qualified product liability lawyer on your side, you can protect your legal rights and pursue the financial compensation you deserve for your injuries, medical bills, and emotional trauma.