IVC Filters Lawsuit

Inferior vena cava filter (IVC) are blood clot filters that are surgically implanted to reduce the risk of clots making their way to the lungs or any other vital organ. The device consists of a small wire filter placed into the inferior vena cava. Blood clots are supposed to be naturally produced to stop blood flow from the body. However, blood clots can sometimes develop in a vein or artery. This situation has the potential to cause a stroke, heart attack, or another serious medical issue.

After implantation of an IVC filter, blood clots are caught by the device, and blood is allowed to flow freely around the trapped blood clot. Next, the normal anticoagulant functions of the body will break the blood clot down. Without the filter in place, the pulmonary artery can become blocked by a blood clot and cause severe health issues.

IVC filters are usually used in individuals at risk of blood clots but cannot take anticoagulant drugs. Over the last two decades, the number of patients receiving IVC filter implants has skyrocketed. Twenty years ago, approximately 49,000 individuals had IVC filters. From 1999 through 2008, IVC filter use increased by 111.5%. By 2012, the number of individuals with IVC filters had climbed to more than 250,000.

Once considered an excellent option for patients with a significant risk of pulmonary embolism, IVC filters have now come under intense scrutiny over their effectiveness and safety. The number of injuries caused to patients has increased, resulting in thousands of lawsuits being filed.

IVC filters are not for everyone. Doctors will sometimes recommend IVC filters to those at risk of developing deep vein thrombosis (DVT). DVT is a condition in which blood clots form in the deep veins.

The filters may also be implanted in those at risk of pulmonary embolism but can’t undergo anticoagulation therapy.

Patients who already have large blood clots in the inferior vena cava or iliac veins are also candidates for IVC filters.

The FDA recommends that patients have their IVC filters removed as soon as the need for pulmonary embolism protection has passed. Patients must not keep their IVC filters longer than needed because these devices may increase the risk of new blood clot formation in the abdomen and legs.

When patients only require short-term protection from blood clots, a retrievable IVC filter is typically used. This type of IVC filter is designed to be removed when the risk period has passed. The Bard IVC Filter was designed to be retrievable. However, this particular device had stayed in the bodies of many patients far beyond the period when pulmonary embolism was a risk.

When left in the human body longer than needed, IVC filters pose these potential risks:

• The filter wanders, changes positions, or moves, making retrieval more complicated.
• The filter punctures the inferior vena cava or other organs.
• The filter breaks into small pieces that travel to the lungs or heart.

If the IVC filter moves or breaks apart, patients may suffer from some of the following symptoms:

• Chest pain
• Confusion
• Hemorrhage
• Pain in the abdomen
• Device Migration
• Thrombosis
• Filter Fracture
• IVC Perforation
• Pulmonary Embolism
• Device Infections

In one case, a woman suffered from intermittent pain in her abdomen that worsened as time went on. In 1992, she received an IVC filter after being diagnosed with life-threatening deep-venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The device remained implanted for more than 18 years.

Eventually, it came loose and became embedded in her intestines, causing immense pain. These side effects are not always easily diagnosed because an IVC filter can affect parts of the body far from where the device was implanted.

Despite IVC filters’ initial purpose to stop critical blood clots, they have caused severe injuries in many patients. IVC filter lawsuits claim that the manufacturers did not adequately warn doctors and patients of the dangerous side effects.

There were 921 adverse reports from 2005 to 2010 submitted to the Food and Drug Administration regarding IVC filters. The data included the following:

• 56 reports of IVC filter fracture
• 70 reports of vena cava perforation
• 146 reports of detachment
• 328 reports of device migration

Some of the lawsuits accuse C.R. Bard of purposely hiding risks after discovering that its IVC filters are dangerous, based on the company’s own study. A report by NBC News quotes a doctor who participated in the internal study as saying, “Further investigation…is urgently warranted.”

As a result of the unexpected side effects and complications associated with IVC filters, patients have filed thousands of lawsuits against the devices’ manufacturers.

In one case, Kelly Vlasvich and her husband Chris sued Bard for negligence and breach of an implied warranty. Kelly Vlasvich had a Bard G2 filter implanted in 2009. It was not until 2011 did she begin experiencing complications. Doctors eventually discovered that the IVC filter fractured, and a piece had become lodged in the right ventricle of her heart. Vlasvich claims this resulted in “significant medical expenses and has endured extreme pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement and other losses, which are permanent in nature.”

Vlasvich’s case is similar to many other cases pending in court. Thousands claim the devices have broken, fractured, or migrated. Some say the IVC filters have even been responsible for deaths.

Negligence by manufacturers such as Bard and Cook Medical has caused innocent people physical harm, emotional stress, and financial loss. IVC filter victims want to hold the manufacturers of these defective devices responsible for their pain and suffering. These harmful devices should have been taken off the market immediately or underwent more rigorous safety tests before being put on the market. Thousands of patients could be entitled to compensation for damages.

With the continued use of IVC filters by patients around the country, it is expected that more lawsuits will continue to be filed. Those who have been implanted with an IVC filter and suffered from complications are encouraged to contact a qualified IVC filter lawyer.

IVC filter lawsuits claim that manufacturers failed to do the following:

• Recall the IVC filters as soon as reports of adverse events were found
• Properly report any adverse events
• Properly warn patients and doctors about the dangerous side effects
• Design a safe device