Study Reveals 43 Percent Perforation Risk with Cook IVC Filter
- Last Updated: August 13th, 2023
Attorney Jessie Paluch, founder of TruLaw, has over 25 years of experience as a personal injury and mass tort attorney, and previously worked as an international tax attorney at Deloitte. Jessie collaborates with attorneys nationwide — enabling her to share reliable, up-to-date legal information with our readers.
Legally Reviewed
This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy and clarity by the team of writers and legal experts at TruLaw and is as accurate as possible. This content should not be taken as legal advice from an attorney. If you would like to learn more about our owner and experienced injury lawyer, Jessie Paluch, you can do so here.
Fact-Checked
TruLaw does everything possible to make sure the information in this article is up to date and accurate. If you need specific legal advice about your case, contact us by using the chat on the bottom of this page. This article should not be taken as advice from an attorney.
Study Reveals 43 Percent Perforation Risk with Cook IVC Filter
A recent study published in the June 2015 Journal of Vascular Interventional Radiology has revealed that the Cook Celect IVC had a 43 percent rate of perforation as compared with the Option filter, which had a zero percent perforation rate.
In conducting the study, researchers looked at the records of 99 people implanted with the Cook Celect IVC filter and compared them with 86 patients who received an Option filter marketed by Rex Medical.
After two months, doctors retrieved the filters, and while they had slightly more difficulty retrieving the Option filters, the Celect filter had a much higher perforation rate, further raising concerns about the safety of Cook IVC filters.
Table of Contents
What are IVC Filters?
IVC filters are used to prevent pulmonary embolism (PE), a potentially preventable cause of death in hospitalized and other high-risk patients.
The probability of PE increases with the development of deep vein thrombosis (DVT).
The treatment for both PE and DVT is anticoagulation, but in circumstances when blood thinners are not appropriate, an IVC filter is used instead.
The first IVC filters were permanent stainless steel versions, followed by temporary filters fastened to the skin to allow for direct removal without ensnaring.
These filters were used in hospitalized patients for a short period of time before they had to be removed.
Currently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved eight optionally retrievable filters, including ALN, Celect, Günther Tulip, G2, G2X, Option, and OptEase.
Unlike previous temporary filters, optional filters do not need to be tethered to the skin and have a lower rate of infection.
They do not have to be removed within a few days, and may be left in place indefinitely, removed when they are no longer needed.
IVC Lawsuits
While Cook faces more than 100 lawsuits pending in federal multidistrict litigation in the Southern District of Indiana involving its Celect and Gunther Tulip filters, another filter manufacturer, C.R. Bard, is currently named in approximately 50 lawsuits involving the company’s Recovery, G2, and G2 Express IVC filters.
The number of lawsuits are expected to increase.
Experienced Attorney & Legal SaaS CEO
With over 25 years of legal experience, Jessie is an Illinois lawyer, a CPA, and a mother of three. She spent the first decade of her career working as an international tax attorney at Deloitte.
In 2009, Jessie co-founded her own law firm with her husband – which has scaled to over 30 employees since its conception.
In 2016, Jessie founded TruLaw, which allows her to collaborate with attorneys and legal experts across the United States on a daily basis. This hypervaluable network of experts is what enables her to share reliable legal information with her readers!
Here, at TruLaw, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Alongside our partner law firms, we have successfully collected over $3 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?
At TruLaw, we fiercely combat corporations that endanger individuals’ well-being. If you’ve suffered injuries and believe these well-funded entities should be held accountable, we’re here for you.
With TruLaw, you gain access to successful and seasoned lawyers who maximize your chances of success. Our lawyers invest in you—they do not receive a dime until your lawsuit reaches a successful resolution!
Do you believe you’re entitled to compensation?
Use our Instant Case Evaluator to find out in as little as 60 seconds!
AFFF Lawsuit claims are being filed against manufacturers of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), commonly used in firefighting.
Claims allege that companies such as 3M, DuPont, and Tyco Fire Products failed to adequately warn users about the potential dangers of AFFF exposure — including increased risks of various cancers and diseases.
Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuit claims are being filed against Indivior, the manufacturer of Suboxone, a medication used to treat opioid addiction.
Claims allege that Indivior failed to adequately warn users about the potential dangers of severe tooth decay and dental injuries associated with Suboxone’s sublingual film version.
Social Media Harm Lawsuits are being filed against social media companies for allegedly causing mental health issues in children and teens.
Claims allege that companies like Meta, Google, ByteDance, and Snap designed addictive platforms that led to anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues without adequately warning users or parents.
Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits are being filed against manufacturers of transvaginal mesh products used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
Claims allege that companies like Ethicon, C.R. Bard, and Boston Scientific failed to adequately warn about potential dangers — including erosion, pain, and infection.
Bair Hugger Warming Blanket Lawsuits involve claims against 3M — alleging their surgical warming blankets caused severe infections and complications (particularly in hip and knee replacement surgeries).
Plaintiffs claim 3M failed to warn about potential risks — despite knowing about increased risk of deep joint infections since 2011.
Baby Formula NEC Lawsuit claims are being filed against manufacturers of cow’s milk-based baby formula products.
Claims allege that companies like Abbott Laboratories (Similac) and Mead Johnson & Company (Enfamil) failed to warn about the increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in premature infants.
Here, at TruLaw, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Alongside our partner law firms, we have successfully collected over $3 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?
