C.R. Bard is facing mounting litigation pressure as more patients join a growing IVC filter multidistrict litigation (MDL). Each patient alleges serious device complications like IVC filter perforation.

One of the most recent IVC filter lawsuits to joining the MDL was filed by a resident of Alabama, who alleges that the device tilted and caused IVC filter perforation. Plaintiff Tressie L. claims the IVC filter perforation has compromised her quality of life and puts them at risk for serious blood vessel damage.

IVC filters are small, metal cage-like devices that are directly implanted into the body’s inferior vena cava, which is the largest vein in the human body. As a vital part of the body’s circulation system, it is an ideal place for IVC filters to be implanted to prevent blood clots from traveling to the heart or lungs.

IVC filters work by trapping blood clots forming in the legs or pelvis, allowing the blood clots to dissolve before the body is placed in any danger. IVC filters are often prescribed to patients who cannot use anticoagulant medication and have been a useful tool in the medical world.

However, the FDA has repeatedly stressed that IVC filters that are only meant for temporary placement should be removed as soon as possible.

Overview of IVC Filter Complications

These risks were allegedly unknown to Tressie when she agreed to have the G2 Vena Cava Filter implanted on June 25, 2009. At this time, it was not known that long-term IVC filter placement seriously increased the risk of device complications.

In 2010, the FDA issued a public warning state it received 921 IVC filter injury reports since 2005 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 followed up this warning with an updated IVC filter announcement in May 2014, stating these devices should be removed between 29 days to 54 days after implantation. If these devices are not moved soon after the blood clot risk is resolved, the patient faces significantly increased chances of IVC filter complications.

This was allegedly the case with Tressie, who opted to file this IVC filter lawsuit after discovering that the G2 Vena Cava Filter had titled and perforated the inferior vena cava. This was reportedly discovering when a CT scan was performed on Feb. 13, 2018, which showed the IVC filter’s position in their body.

Patients who suffered IVC filter perforation and other device complications often have to get the devices removed, but this is sometimes not possible with patients.

While research shows that approximately 80 percent of patients have their IVC filters removed successfully, some patients are forced to live with the device in cases where the IVC filter scarred the vein and caused it to attach to the device.

Tressie states they would not have agreed to have the G2 Vena Cava Filter implanted if she knew about the potential device complications.

Tressie’s IVC filter lawsuit is joining MDL No. 2641, where it will stand alongside other claims and be streamlined through the litigation process.

This IVC Filter Perforation Lawsuit is Case 2:18-cv-02654-DGC, in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.