Even though medical device manufacturer Bard may have known about the complications associated with its Bard blood clot filter, it continued to sell them.

NBC News reports that at least 27 deaths were associated with their original Bard blood clot filter called the Recovery. Allegedly, Bard replaced the device with a modified version. But not long after it was approved, the company allegedly knew that it had similar problems to the initial version of the device.

According to NBC, just four months after C.R. Bard released the G2 Bard blood clot filter, it was concerned about failure reports.

The G2 was designed to replace the Recovery Bard blood clot filter. Bard sold 160,000 of them and kept the G2 Bard blood clot filter on the market for five more years.

Since that time it has been connected with over a dozen fatalities and many adverse event reports.

Dr. William Kuo, a specialist in removing blood clot filters that have failed, told NBC, “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 Stanford radiologist went on to say that “[t]he number of complications, the frequency of severe failures makes it obvious that it was never safe to be implanted.”

What is a Bard Blood Clot Filter?

The Bard blood clot filter line was designed to catch blood clots if and when they travel from the lower extremities of the body to the heart and lungs. It is a device that looks like a small cage that is inserted into the inferior vena cava.

When the Bard Recovery device was approved in 2002, Bard had expected to do well in the competitive IVC filter market. However, with so many reports of adverse events, it had difficulty.

The adverse events reported included filter fracture and device movement. It was also thought that the Bard blood clot filter had a higher risk of death for its patients.

NBC reports that several confidential memos show clearly that Bard knew about the problems with migration, tilting and perforation, that is, when the device perforates the vein itself or other organs.

Both the Recovery filter and the G2 filter lines were shown to have many problems and complications associated with them

Dr. Kuo believes that both devices should have been pulled from the market. He claims to have removed over 1,000 filters in the last decade and of these filters, he has removed more Bard-made filters than any other manufacturer.

He said, “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 or someone you love has been adversely affected by a Bard blood clot filter, you may be entitled to monetary compensation.