Serious IVC filter risks have raised widespread concerns in the patient population due to numerous reports of the device breaking apart and compounding the patient’s medical condition.

These IVC filter risks described in injury reports range in severity, with the FDA warning patients to have the device removed after the blood clot risks are resolved.

In May 2014, the FDA issued an update of a previous IVC filter warning from 2010, with the agency stating it had developed a quantitative analysis of the IVC filter risks. The agency stated that after the risk of blood clot complications has passed, the IVC filter should be removed, generally between 29 and 54 days after implantation, to reduce the chances of IVC filter risks.

The initial IVC filter warning came in 2010, when the FDA stated that it had received 921 IVC filter injury reports since 2005. The agency stated it had received numerous reports of IVC filter risks including:

• 328 reports of IVC filter migration
• 146 reports IVC filter components detaching
• 70 reports of IVC filter perforation
• 56 reports of IVC filter fracture

The FDA warned patients that many of the IVC filter risks stem from long-term use of the device, with the agency stressing that temporary IVC filters should be removed soon after the blood clot is resolved.

The FDA went on to say that physicians should discuss the potential IVC filter risks associated with the device, as well as the benefits of IVC removal for each patient.

Overview of IVC Filter Risks

IVC (inferior vena cava) filters are directly implanted into the vena cava, the largest vein in the body, to treat and prevent blood clot attacks. These small metal cage-like devices are designed to stop blood clots forming in the legs or pelvis from traveling to the heart and lungs, ultimately preventing blood clot complications.

IVC filters are often prescribed to patients who cannot handle oral anticoagulant therapy, but are still at risk for heart attack and other similar events. As indicated earlier, patients and physicians can choose between temporary or permanent IVC filter models from different manufacturers.

Even though IVC filters were originally made for permanent placement, retrievable models have been recently developed in the few years. However, it has been alleged the IVC filter risks are caused by the defective nature of the retrievable IVC filter models.

In addition, complaints have alleged retrievable models are made from inferior materials and are not designed for long-term use. IVC filters are often prescribed to patients who are at risk for blood clot attacks, who cannot be prescribed anticoagulant therapy.

Millions of patients opt for this alternative every year to stave off any blood clot complications, with many of them not knowing the severity of IVC filter risks. Even though these IVC filter risks can be potentially dangerous for patients, a number of manufacturers failed to warn the public against them, patients say.

Patients who allegedly experienced complications from the IVC filter risks may be eligible to file legal action and should contact a lawyer for a free consultation.