Blood clot filters have been in use for a long time, yet they are still not considered standard practice.

According to one study, the rate at which hospitals use blood clot filters varied from 0 percent to 40 percent over the course of five years, a wide range for such a device.

A study from the University of California Davis School of Medicine noted that this variation may be attributed in part to the differences in local medical culture or specialists.

Richard White, MD, and other colleagues working on the study wanted to point out one important possible factor in this “striking variation.”

In their findings, they emphasized the possibility that this striking variation in filter usage and different hospitals over time might be due to a lack of evidence that these blood clot filters are effective.

Blood clot filters are indeed associated with significant blood clot filter side effects, and may carry with them very little benefit to outweigh these risks.

The lack of evidence proving the efficacy of blood clot filters leaves clinicians in a tough place, not knowing the true benefits of the devices.

One factor that has contributed to this lack of evidence is the absence of randomized clinical trials which would be able to help provide the necessary evidence.

However, there is little to no incentive for the medical device industry to perform this kind of research after the devices are already in use.

According to one study, “We need either the FDA to require current filter manufacturers to perform efficacy studies … as a condition for remaining on the market, or a large federally funded study to determine if this expensive device leads to greater benefit than harm.”

Another recent study found that about half of the patients who receive blood clot filters actually gave no clear or reasonable indication for having one.

“The absence of reliable data indicating a clear benefit (or clear harm) associated with (filter) use likely contributes to the wide variation in use that we observed,” the study concluded.

Blood Clot Filters

Blood clot filters, also known as an IVC or inferior vena cava filters, are commonly used to stop blood clots from entering dangerous places in a person’s body, such as the lungs and heart, which can cause serious damage.

However, a series of severe blood clot filter side effects have been linked with these devices, causing concern among both doctors and their patients.

In some cases, these side effects have led patients to file blood clot filter lawsuits claiming that the devices are defective.

Blood Clot Filter Complications

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has received a number of adverse event reports over blood clot filters in the last several years. Blood clot filter complications listed in these reports include punctured organs and migrating filters.

Blood clot filter complications can occur for a few reasons. Firstly, the device may have been defective.  Secondly, the filter may have been placed incorrectly in the initial surgery, allowing the filter to slip further over time and possibly damage the surrounding area.

Blood Clot Filter Lawsuits

Lawsuits claim that the device manufacturers were aware of the defectiveness of their devices, yet failed to adequately warn the public and the medical community about these risks.

Instead, lawsuits allege, devices were marketed as safe and effective despite available evidence to the contrary.

If you or someone you love has suffered from blood clot filter side effects, you may be able to file a lawsuit.