Failure to Remove IVC Filters Contributing to Rise of IVC Thrombosis
- Last Updated: August 11th, 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.
Failure to Remove IVC Filters Contributing to Rise of IVC Thrombosis
The placement of IVC Filters (inferior vena cava filters) without subsequent retrieval may be one of the main reasons that IVC thrombosis is on the rise, according to MedPage Today.
It is estimated that IVC thrombosis accounts for 2.6 to 4.0 percent of deep vein thrombosis cases.
Table of Contents
What is IVC Thrombosis?
IVC thrombosis is an unwanted adverse event that occurs mainly after IVC filter insertion; therefore, IVC filters should only be used for proper indications, and if an IVC filter is inserted, it should be a retrievable type, as the filter needs to come out as soon as possible, as recommended by the FDA.
In August 2010, the FDA issued a warning stating that the agency had received 921 adverse event reports concerning IVC filters.
The FDA has subsequently concluded that the risk of injury may outweigh any potential benefits of implanting IVC filters, and the FDA advised physicians to remove the filters as soon as the danger of blood clots has passed.
The warning was updated in May 2014, when the FDA encouraged all physicians involved in the treatment and follow-up of patients receiving IVC filters to consider the risks and benefits of filter removal for each patient.
At that time, the FDA also required manufacturers to collect additional clinical data addressing safety questions for currently marketed IVC filters in the U.S.
Problems Associated With Non-Removal of IVC Filters
Common complications with IVC filters left in the body for long periods of time include:
- The progression of DVT
- Recurrent PE
- Filter migration
- Tilt, break, or embolism
- IVC perforation or occlusion
There are currently no guidelines on the time frame during which IVC filters must be retrieved from the body, and according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the majority of IVC filters are not retrieved, despite the perceived risk of increased fracture, embolism, and IVC wall penetration.
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?
