C.R. Bard is facing a growing multidistrict litigation (MDL) from patients who experienced complications after being implanted with certain models of Bard IVC filters.

One of the most recent IVC filter lawsuits comes from an Ohio couple alleging the wife had experienced serious side effects due to the alleged defective nature of the Bard G2 filter. Plaintiff couple Linda C. and Roger C. are filing legal action against C.R. Bard over these Bard G2 filter complications.

According to their IVC filter lawsuit, Linda had the Bard G2 filter implanted on Sept. 1, 2007 for typical treatment purposes. Linda had opted for the device after reviewing Bard’s marketing materials with her physician.

However, the couple says that not long after the Bard G2 filter was implanted, Linda soon began experiencing extraordinary side effects and had to seek treatment. Linda and Roger decided to file legal action against the company, after discovering there were numerous other patients who had allegedly suffered IVC filter complications. Furthermore, the couple was also troubled by previous FDA announcements regarding the potentially defective nature of IVC filters.

Overview of IVC Filter Complications

IVC (inferior vena cava) filters are small metal cage like devices that are directly implanted in the inferior vena cava vein of the body. As the largest vein in the human body, the inferior vena cava is a vital component in the body’s circulation process.

An IVC filter is often used in patients who cannot use anticoagulant treatment, and it offers a different solution to blood clot formation. These devices work by stopping and preventing blood clots that form in the legs or pelvis from traveling to the heart or lungs. This ultimately prevents blood clot-related injuries like stroke and pulmonary embolism.

Experts advise that these devices be removed soon after the blood clot is resolved. This is because there have been numerous injury reports of IVC filter complications, many of which required revision surgery to remove the IVC filters.

The FDA released an official warning about IVC filter complications in 2010, with the agency stating it had received over 921 injury reports since 2005. The FDA warning described a number of IVC complications reported by patients including:

• 328 reports of IVC Filter Migration
• 146 reports of IVC Filter Component Detachment
• 70 reports of IVC Filter Perforation
• 56 reports of IVC Filter Fracture

The FDA stated that many of these IVC filter complications were related to long-term use of filters that were designed to be temporary. This led the agency to advise healthcare providers that these filters should be removed as soon as the threat of clot injuries has resolved. The FDA issued an updated warning in May 2014, stating that IVC filters should generally be removed around 29 to 54 days after implantation.

Even with these warnings, numerous patients are still at risk for IVC filter complications. Linda and Roger are joining MDL No. 2641, where their IVC filter lawsuit will stand alongside other claims alleging similar injuries. Linda states she would not have agreed to use the Bard G2 filter, if she had known about the high failure rate.

This IVC Filter Lawsuit is Case No. 2:17-cv-02577-DGC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.