Lawsuits alleging the harmful nature of certain IVC filters are growing, and studies are now confirming the association of personal injury with these devices.

IVC filters are devices that are surgically implanted into the inferior vena cava (IVC), a large vein that carries deoxygenated blood from the lower body back to the heart. The devices have spider-like projections and they work by essentially sifting out any blood clots and allowing only blood to pass through. Veins from the leg or pelvis can often be the source of such blood clots, and the IVC filter traps the blood clots, reducing the risk of a pulmonary embolism. A pulmonary embolism is a blood clot in the lung, and it can be life threatening.

Usually, individuals at risk for blood clots are given blood thinning medications, but not all individuals are candidates for such medicine. IVC filters are recommended for those individuals as an alternative. These devices are usually placed temporarily, often as an outpatient procedure, and can be removed once the danger of a potential blood clot has passed.

The Dangers of IVC Filters

Because of their spider-like design with projections that reach out like a claw to catch the blood clots, the devices can actually rotate from their safe position and can puncture the vena cava or cause other injuries.

The FDA issued a warning in May 2014 regarding the importance of removing these temporary devices. Once a month or two has passed following the risk of an embolism, it’s recommended that the filters be removed. In addition to the potential perforation of the vein and movement of the device, the device itself can fracture, break free and be difficult to remove. These adverse events are more likely to happen the longer the devices were left in place.

Four years before the recent warning, the FDA issued an alert in 2010 about the general dangers of removable IVC filters. The warning was prompted by the receipt of over 900 adverse event reports. Of those reports, 328 indicated that the filter broke free and was lodged elsewhere in the body, 146 reported the various components broke loose, 70 involved vena cava perforation, and 56 instances were from the filter fracturing.

Study Outcome on Cook Celect and Rex Option Filters

In June 2015, a study was published in the Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology that looked at the Cook Celect and Rex Option filters over a 33 month period. Ninety-nine Celect filters and 86 Option filters were studied. The following outcomes were observed:

• Retrieval rates of the two filters were not significantly different
• Significant tilting of the device was seen in the Option filters (16.7 percent) and was less in Cook filters (8.9 percent)
• Despite the more frequent occurrence of tilting in the Option IVC filters, the incidence of perforation for the Option IVC filters was 0 percent compared to Cook Celect IVC filters, significantly higher at 43 percent

IVC Filter Lawsuit Information

There are quite a few IVC filter lawsuits in the federal courts that are currently pending. Due to the number of claims, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Mutlidistrict Litigation (JMPL) has consolidated Cook IVC lawsuits in the Southern District of Indiana under Judge Richard L. Young. Court cases are consolidated into an MDL (multidistrict litigation) when there are multiple cases against the same product/defendant. This assists in streamlining the process and conserves resources (cases are all at one court heard under one judge) and allows for more consistent rulings across the cases. The JPML are also considering consolidation into an MDL for the Bard IVC removable filters due to the increasing number of lawsuits filed for that device.

If you or a loved one has experienced injury due to an IVC filter, you may have a legal claim. Our experienced lawyers can guide you and assist you in filing an individual lawsuit or joining an MDL. Case reviews are complimentary and confidential.