As the blood clot filter controversy continues, many are asking why manufacturers continued to market these products despite the injuries patients have reported.

A blood clot filter is meant to prevent blood clots from traveling up to the lungs or heart, from the lower pelvic region. However, a number of patients have reported blood clot filter complications, including 27 deaths and blood clot filter perforation.

What is an IVC Blood Clot Filter?

A blood clot filter is a metal cage-like device that is implanted in the inferior vena cava, the largest blood vessel in the body.

These devices are designed to catch blood clots formed in the legs or pelvic until the clots resolve themselves, preventing blood clots from traveling to the lungs or heart.

There are current and temporary blood clot filter models available on the market, with patients reporting numerous problems with the temporary blood clot filters.

According to confidential company records from C.R. Bard collected by NBC News, the company had been concerned about IVC blood clot filter complications, specifically for its G2 blood clot filter series.

The G2 blood clot filters were meant to replace the company’s Recovery blood clot filter series, after four months of being approved to go to market by the FDA.

However, documents show that instead of recalling the G2 blood clot filter series, Bard chose to keep the product line on the market until 2010, selling over 160,000.

Blood Clot Filter Concerns

According to a recent NBC News investigation, Bard and FDA records indicate at least twelve deaths and hundreds of IVC filter complications have been linked to the G2 blood clot filter implants.

Bard had created this blood clot filter implant series to break into the lucrative IVC filter market, with an estimated 250,000 patients getting a blood clot filter implant.

Bard is one of 11 companies that manufactures these devices, and was initially hopeful with its Recovery blood clot filter series. But after numerous reports of death and injuries of device perforation and migration, Bard commissioned a study to evaluate the safety of the Recovery IVC blood clot filters.

The study showed that these IVC filters had a higher risk of injury and likelihood of blood clot filter removal raised. Despite the results, Bard had opted not to recall it, but latter replaced them with the G2 blood clot filter series.

Internal reports from Bard indicate that these newer models, did not solve the previous one’s defects. These internal memos also stated that the G2 blood clot filters had “problems with migration”, leading to many patients needing to undergo blood clot removal procedures.

According to the NBC News series, Bard kept the G2 blood clot filters on the market until 2010, when one patient had the Bard G2 Express IVC filter implanted that later perforated and migrated away from the implant sight.

The IVC blood clot filter the patient had implanted was reportedly found very close to his heart, and had to undergo emergency blood clot filter removal.

Bard declined to answer NBC’s questions, stating that “all medical devices carry some level of risk.”

Filing a Blood Clot Filter Lawsuit

Bard and other IVC blood clot filter manufacturers are facing legal action for these complications, from patients alleging the companies failed to warn them. Affected patients should contact specialized lawyers, to determine if they have an IVC blood clot filter lawsuit.