FDA Recommends Removal of Retrievable IVC Filters

Written By:
Jessie Paluch
Jessie Paluch

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.

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.

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.

IVC Filter Device
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.

Written By:
Jessie Paluch
Jessie Paluch

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!

Camp Lejeune Lawsuit

Camp Lejeune’s water contamination issue spanned several decades starting in the 1950s. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to various serious health issues, including cancer, organ diseases, and death.

Tylenol Lawsuit

Research is increasingly suggesting a link between the use of Tylenol during pregnancy and the development of neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism and ADHD, in infants.

AFFF Lawsuit

Legal action is being taken against manufacturers of Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF), a chemical used in fighting fires. The plaintiffs allege that exposure to the foam caused health issues such as cancer, organ damage, and birth and fertility issues.

Do You
Have A Case?

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?

Helpful Sites & Resources