FDA Recommends Removal of Retrievable IVC Filters
- Last Updated: August 4th, 2023
Attorney Jessica Paluch-Hoerman, founder of TruLaw, has over 28 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.
FDA Recommends Removal of Retrievable IVC Filters
Since the introduction of the inferior vena cava filter (IVC filter) in 2005, the FDA has received thousands of adverse reports involving these filters.
TruLaw is talking to individuals that believe they were harmed as a result of IVC filter fracture, migration, embolization or perforation.
Lawsuits against the three largest manufacturers of the retrievable IVC filters – C.R. Bard, Cook Medical, and Cordis – continue to be filed.
Table of Contents
What is an IVC Filter?
IVC filters are small, cage-like devices that are inserted into the inferior vena cava (the main vessel returning blood from the lower half of the body to the heart) to capture blood clots and prevent them from reaching the lungs.
Without an IVC filter in place, there would be a potential risk for the embolism to cause a blockage of the pulmonary artery, known as a pulmonary embolism, and cause difficulty breathing, chest pain, and death.
Until recently, IVC filters were only available as permanently implanted devices, but newer filters called optionally retrievable filters, can either be left in place permanently or may be removed from the blood vessel later, when the risk of a blood clot breaking loose has passed.
IVC filter usage has increased since its introduction in 2005 with more than 250,000 filters implanted annually in recent years.
The Global IVC filter market is projected to reach $435 million by 2016, 60% of profit coming from retrievable filters.
FDA Warnings
In August 2010 Safety Communication, the FDA recommended that implanting physicians and clinicians responsible for the ongoing care of patients with retrievable IVC filters consider removing the filter as soon as protection from pulmonary embolism (PE) is no longer needed.
Unfortunately, it has been reported that only one-quarter of “retrievable” IVC filters are removed and the complication rate of filters is likely to go up the longer IVC filters are left in place.
According to a recent Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing, C.R. Bard disclosed that the company received a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration alleging misfiled customer complaints, including one reporting a patient’s death.
The warning letter focused on Bard’s Recovery Cone Removal System, which is used to retrieve inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.
The letter also alleges that Bard manufactured the Recovery Cone Removal System without the required clearance or approval, and failed to inform the FDA of serious malfunctions associated with the device.
Managing Attorney & Owner
With over 25 years of legal experience, Jessica Paluch-Hoerman 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 the most reliable, accurate, and up-to-date legal information with our 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!
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.
Depo Provera Lawsuit claims are being filed by individuals who allege they developed meningioma (a type of brain tumor) after receiving Depo-Provera birth control injections.
A 2024 study found that women using Depo-Provera for at least 1 year are five times more likely to develop meningioma brain tumors compared to those not using the drug.
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?
