Each year thousands of patients receive inferior vena cava filters or IVC filters.

However, the patients who are implanted with these IVC filters may not be properly warned by doctors or surgeons regarding an alarming IVC filter failure rate.

According to medical studies and recent lawsuits, this device can be problematic because the high IVC filter failure rate increases with the duration of the filter in the body.

About the IVC Filter Procedure

The implantation of an IVC filter is an endovascular procedure, where surgeons generally use the jugular or femoral vein. The patient is first injected with contrast dyes which can be tracked by X-ray images as the dye circulates through the bloodstream.

With this visual imaging guidance, surgeons then insert a catheter to the filter placement site. The filter is then guided through the catheter’s hollow tube until it reaches the precise location within the artery.

The entire procedure takes less than one hour and is performed under local anesthetic.

Concern Over IVC Filter Failure Rate

There are many serious risks associated with the implantation of an IVC filter. One of the more common risks is the possibility that the IVC filter can change position, lodge in the wrong part of the vessel, or puncture a vein.

In fact, over the last 15 years, the FDA has received more than 920 adverse event reports regarding IVC filters, some of which led to substantial injury to patients.

Detachment of filter components, IVC perforation, filter fracture and device migration were reported in a 2010 safety communication issued by federal health regulators.

The FDA cautions that such complications may be caused by leaving a retrievable filter in the body for too long, and in 2014 stated that the “risk/benefit profile begins to favor removal of the IVC filter between 29 and 54 days after implantation.”

A study in the Archives of Internal Medicine suggests that certain IVC filters – the Bard Recovery and G2 filter –

may be more prone to a higher IVC filter failure rate, giving credence to recent claims made in lawsuits filed against the company.

Other research published in JAMA Internal Medicine in 2010 concluded that the “Recovery and Bard G2 filters had high prevalences of fracture and embolization, with potentially life-threatening sequelae.”

Filing an IVC Filter Lawsuit

There are two major companies that manufacture these IVC filters – C.R. Bard and Cook Medical. These IVC filter makers are facing hundreds of lawsuits over claims of IVC filter injuries where the filter devices broke apart, traveled to other areas of the body, and caused significant damage.

According to allegations, the IVC filters have a tendency to fracture, allowing small pieces to break off and perforate vessel walls, leading to long-term organ damage.

For some patients, once the filter has migrated or fractured, it becomes almost impossible to surgically remove in its entirety due to risk of long-term complications.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) ordered all lawsuits filed against C.R. Bard to be consolidated before one federal judge in Phoenix, Arizona, for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

This means that cases pending in various federal courts nationwide will be transferred to Arizona. Bard, which manufactures these devices, is headquartered in Phoenix.

An MDL has also been established for all Cook Medical IVC filter lawsuits in the Southern District of Indiana.

If you or a loved one were not informed of the high risk of IVC filter failure rate and subsequently were injured or harm by the medical device, you may be eligible for compensation for your pain and suffering.  An experienced IVC filter attorney can review your case confidentially and at no charge.