Many individuals have had an Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter implanted to protect thems from blood clots traveling to the heart or lungs.

While the IVC filter may seem like a safe, life-saving device, some users have experienced adverse IVC filter side effects that caused them serious pain.

It was found that IVC filters are less likely to cause complications if they are removed after the risk of pulmonary embolism is gone. Patients who intend to use IVC filters for a long-term solution may be putting themselves at risk of suffering dangerous side effects.

The FDA found that IVC filter side effects may include:

• IVC thrombosis
• Deep vein thrombosis (DVT)
• Access site thrombosis
• Filter migration
• Caval penetration
• IVC filter fracture

The risk of developing these IVC side effects was suggested to drastically decrease if the filter was removed after a short period of time. Research has shown that though the length of time the IVC filter was in the body affects potential side effects, it does not affect ease of removability.

About IVC Filters

An IVC filter is a device that is intended to prevent blood clots from traveling to the lungs or heart. While it was originally intended to only be used for the duration of pulmonary embolism risk, many devices have been left in a patient’s body for longer than originally intended.

The FDA issued a warning in May 2014 stating that IVC filters should be removed after one or two months of use.

JAMA Internal Medicine published a study that found that the amount of time the IVC filter was in place does not affect the success rate of IVC removal. The study covered date ranging a five year period of time (between 2009 and 2014) during which  83 percent of the IVC filters were able to be removed without complications.

Nearly 100 removals required a second, more challenging technique when the standard removal procedure failed. It was suggested that the need to change removal procedures could be related to the duration the IVC filter was in the patient, but researchers concluded that, for the most part, IVC removal is a safe procedure even if the patient had the device for longer than the suggested amount of time.

The FDA began warning about IVC complications in 2010 after receiving nearly 1,000 complaints that the device had caused serious complications. Many of these complaints involved IVC filter migration, broken components, and perforation.

It has been suggested that IVC filters are not as safe or effective as the manufacturers have suggested. As a result of these claims and the multiple device failures, IVC lawsuits have been filed against drug manufacturers for failing to warn against these harmful side effects.