IVC Filter Side Effect Studies

IVC filters were first introduced in 1979, and the medical devices have been implanted in approximately 259,000 patients in the years since. In 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety communication indicating that the agency had received 921 reports of adverse side effects involving IVC filters from 2005 to 2010, including device migration, filter fracture, filter perforation and filter embolization. Two years later, a study published in the American Journal of Medicine reported that IVC filters did not actually reduce mortality rates in stable patients experiencing pulmonary embolism. In fact, researchers reported that only a small percentage of pulmonary embolism patients actually benefitted from blood clot filters, while the rest were exposed to an unnecessary risk of serious side effects.

According to a 2013 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, in which researchers looked at the failure rate of retrievable IVC filters, the findings indicated that 18.3% of attempts at removing the filters were unsuccessful, 7.8% of patients involved in the study suffered venous thrombotic events, and 25 patients suffered a pulmonary embolism. In 2014, the FDA issued an updated IVC filter safety communication, recommending that retrievable blood clot filters be removed between one and two months after the risk of pulmonary embolism has subsided, in order to reduce the risk of potentially life-threatening complications.

In 2014, the FDA issued a safety communication, recommending that retrievable blood clot filters be removed between one and two months after the risk of pulmonary embolism has subsided, in order to reduce the risk of potentially life-threatening complications.

Alleged IVC Filter Complications

  • Perforation of the inferior vena cava
  • Filter migration
  • Filter breakage
  • Filter embolization
  • Injury to nearby organs
Call To Speak With a Representative    877-920-4111

What is an IVC Filter?

An inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is a cone-shaped medical device implanted in the inferior vena cava, the large vein that carries deoxygenated blood into the heart, just below the kidneys. The filter features struts, or legs, designed to capture blood clots that have broken free from one of the deep veins in the legs, to keep them from traveling to the heart and lungs and causing a pulmonary embolism. Some blood clot filters are permanent and others are temporary, or retrievable, designed to be removed once the risk of pulmonary embolism has subsided. The potential issue with retrievable IVC filters is that they are sometimes left in the body for too long, which makes them more difficult to remove and which may further increase the risk of filter complications.

IVC Filter Manufacterers

A growing body of research has linked C.R. Bard, Cook Medical, and Gunther tulip IVC filters to an increased risk of serious complications. Filter products indicated in these reports include:

  • C.R. Bard Recovery filter
  • C.R. Bard G2 filter
  • Cook Medical┬áCelect filter
  • Gunther Tulip filter

IVC Filter Lawsuit Information

As more information comes to light about the potential for IVC filters to cause serious side effects in patients at risk for blood clots and pulmonary embolism, a growing number of consumers who believe they have been harmed by IVC filter side effects are pursuing legal claims against C.R. Bard, Cook Medical and other device manufacturing companies. If you received a blood clot filter in the past, and you have since suffered side effects like filter embolization, filter migration or perforation of the vena cava, consult a reputable IVC filter attorney as soon as possible to discuss your options for legal recourse. You may have grounds to file a product liability lawsuit against the device manufacturing company, in order to pursue financial compensation for your injuries and medical bills.