Patients unable to tolerate blood thinners could also find problems with IVC filters.

Introduced in 1979, IVC (Inferior Vena Cava) filters are small cage-like structures that capture blood clots in the vena cava, a large vein in the body,  before the clots can travel to the lungs, where they could result in a pulmonary embolism.

The problem is that IVC filters are fragile mechanisms. Some of these structures look like tiny spiders, with moveable “legs” that can break away and travel to other parts of the body.

In 2010, the FDA informed doctors that retrievable IVC filters should be removed as soon as the danger of a pulmonary embolism is no longer immediate. The FDA was concerned over problems with IVC filters, such as a piece of a filter breaking away and moving to an unintended area within the body.

The FDA decided in May 2014 that risks of such problems would be decreased if the filters were removed between 39 and 54 days after implantation.

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) determined that IVC filters were not as capable as blood thinners at preventing pulmonary embolisms. Researchers reported that patients with IVC filters were twice as apt to have a blood clot migrate to their lungs than those on blood thinners, also known as anticoagulants.

Many Manufacturers’ IVC Filters Have Problems

The problems with IVC filters do not stop with one brand or even with one company.

Cook Celect and Cook Gunther Tulip IVC filters all showed a bit of vena caval perforation within 71 days of implantation, according to a study published in the CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology publication in April 2012.  Researchers determined that at least one part of the IVC filter perforated all the way through the wall of the vena cava in 86 percent of the cases. The IVC filters tiled or eroded in 40 percent of the cases.

University of Colorado researchers determined in March 2015 that the Cook Celect’s rate of perforations were significantly higher than that of its competitors.

Problems with IVC filters haunt Bard as well. In 2003, the Bard Recovery IVC filter went on the market but was removed from circulation just two years later in 2005.

Even though the Bard Recovery IVC filter was never officially recalled, Bard introduced its G2 IVC filter with claims of “enhanced fracture resistance,” “improved centering” and “increased migration resistance.”

In the end, both Bard products were found to be apt to fracture and fail to the point that serious and possibly life-threatening injuries could result.

IVC Filters Can Migrate

When pieces of IVC filters break, the tiny pieces can migrate to the lungs, heart or other organs. Sometimes, even when surgeons determine where a piece of an IVC filter has lodged, the safest course of action might be to leave it rather than risk surgery of a delicate area.

Frighteningly, at least one IVC filter did not break, but the entire mechanism was pushed with such force by a blood clot that the filter was pushed up into the heart of a patient, who died of her injury.

If you or someone you know has experienced problems with IVC filters, such as migration, IVC perforation, DVT or pulmonary embolism, you could benefit from speaking with a lawyer regarding your options to receive compensation for your injuries, medical bills, lost wages and more.