IVC Filter

IVC Filters designed to prevent blood clots from reaching the heart and lungs are failing at alarming rates. Affected individuals require immediate removal and may be left with severe side effects.

Overview of IVC Filters

IVC Filters are spider-shaped devices inserted into the largest vein of the body to capture blood clots and prevent them from reaching the lungs. IVC filters are frequently placed in patients at risk for pulmonary embolism (PE) when anticoagulant therapy cannot be used or is ineffective.

Although the original indication was to use IVC filters after anticoagulant therapy fails, increasingly IVC Filters are being used before exhausting anticoagulant therapy, in a prophylactic manner. Critics believe the use of IVC Filters in this manner puts patients at an unnecessary increased risk of complications from IVC Filters.

Eleven companies sell IVC Filters in the US. An increase in the use of retrievable filters has coordinated with an increase in revenue for the manufacturers of IVC filters, as retrievable filters are more expensive. Retrievable filters represent approximately 75% of the IVC filter market.

Types of IVC Filters

Below are several of the IVC filters that can be found implanted in US patients:

  • ALN Filters
  • Bard IVC Filters include – Bard Denali, Bard Eclipse, Bard G2, Bard G2X, Bard Meridian, Bard Recovery, Bard Simon Nitinol
  • Braun Vena Tech
  • Boston Scientific Greenfield
  • Cook IVC Filters include, Cook Bird’s Nest, Cook Celect, Cook Gunther Tulip, Cordis Optease, Cordis Trapease
  • Rafael SafeFlo
  • Rex Medical Option
  • Volcano Crux

Vena Cava Filter Side Effects

  • Filter Fracture
  • Penetration and Perforation
  • Migration and Embolization
  • Difficulty Moving the device
  • IVC Thrombosis and Stenosis
  • VTE After IVC Filter Implantation
  • Post-Thromobotic Syndorme

IVC Filter Lawsuits Filed

IVC Filter lawsuits are being filed on behalf of individuals experiencing life-altering complications from IVC Filters.

These lawsuits are being filed against the manufacturers of these devices, including the industry leaders, Cordis Corporation, Cook Medical and C.R. Bard.

IVC Filter use saw a 20-fold increase of use between 1979 and 1999, according to the National Hospital Discharge Survey.   Today, the IVC Filter market is worth $190 million and is growing at a compound annual growth rate of 11% per year.

FDA Alert

FDA Warning Logo In August 2010, The FDA issued a Safety Alert concerning the use of IVC Filters. The FDA recommends 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 PE is no longer needed.

IVC Filter Complications Increase as the Use of Filters Increase

According to the FDA, the scope of the IVC Filter complication problem has increased rapidly because of the increase use of IVC filters. In 1979, 2,000 IVC Filters were used and by 2012, that number had increased to nearly 260,000

In addition to the increased use of IVC Filters, retrievable filters are remaining in the body for longer periods of time, beyond the time when the risk of pulmonary embolism has passed.

In 2010, the FDA encouraged all physicians involved in the treatment and follow up of IVC filter recipients to consider the risks and benefits of filter removal for each patient and to recommend removal as soon as it is feasible.

In May 2014, the FDA updated their initial safety communication to include new research and studies as they became aware of them. The FDA noted that they had become aware of reports from individuals experiencing the following IVC filter side effects:

  • Device migration
  • Filter fracture
  • Embolization (movement of the entire filter or fracture fragments to the heart or lungs)
  • Perforation of the IVC
  • Difficulty removing the device

According to the FDA, these complications have led to further adverse events including lower limb deep vein thrombosis and IVC occlusion. The FDA renewed their concern that retrievable IVC filters are not being removed when the risk outweighs the benefit.

Problems with your IVC Filter?
Get Instant Online Analysis Now!

IVC Filter Complications

blue arrow

Filter Fracture

Separation of any component of the filter due to structural failure. Accounts for up to 22% of complications reported in the MAUDE (Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience) database.

blue arrow

Penetration and Perforation

Visualization of one of more filter struts beyond the cava wall or within an adjacent structure. Accounts for up to 20% of complications reported in the MAUDE database.

blue arrow

Migration and Embolization

Movement of the device beyond the location of initial placement within the IVC. Accounts for 22% of complications reported in the MAUDE database.

blue arrow

IVC Thrombosis and Stenosis

Formation of chronic DVT in the IVC secondary to prolonged IVC Filter implantation. Increased risk with prolonged implantation and absence of therapeutic anticoagulation.

blue arrow

VTE After IVC Filter Implantation

A new DVT or PE that occurs in a patient after placement of an IVC filter. Increased risk with prolonged implantation and absence of therapeutic anticoagulation.

blue arrow

Post-Thrombotic Syndrome (PTS)

A constellation of symptoms following chronic DVT formation that includes swelling, heaviness, pain, skin changes, and/or venous ulceration. May occur in up to 70% of patients with unresolved DVT and an indwelling IVC filter. Risk appears to increase with prolonged filter implantation.

IVC Filter Frequently Asked Questions

We often hear injured people refer to their personal injury case as a “class action” because their case was grouped together in a lawsuit with other injured people. This is most often NOT the case. Often, individual cases are grouped together so the attorneys and judge can address common procedural issues initially, saving time for the injured parties and the court, but this is very generally referred to as a “mass tort.”

A Mass tort refers to civil actions involving numerous plaintiffs against one or a few corporate defendants in state or federal court. Class actions are mass torts that are generally used on financial losses and multidistrict litigations (MDL) are generally used on personal injury claims, often in product liability cases.

MDL is a procedural tool used when plaintiffs have incurred injuries from products manufactured by the same defendant(s). Even when plaintiffs incur injuries from the same defendant(s), the amount of damages they may recover for those injuries are often substantially different from other plaintiffs included in the same lawsuit.

It is important to understand that mass tort cases are an effective tool to getting the attention of the large drug and device companies. MDLs assist lawyers in determining exactly what the drug and device companies knew about the risks their products caused and whether or not they should have warned consumers. Too often, consumers believe that they can file a single lawsuit and get the attention of big drug companies. This is very hard to do.

Technically, MDLs do not happen until a judicial panel transfers individual cases to a single court. Depending on when your lawsuit is filed, you may find yourself automatically transferred to the MDL court or you may wait to learn when and if the JPML believes an MDL is the proper venue for the mass tort.

But, rest assured, even if your case is included in an MDL, TruLaw lawyers will treat your injuries, your medical history and your financial needs separately. We are aware that not all cases are the same.

Sometimes you need a lawyer near you and sometimes its best to hire a lawyer based on the lawyer’s resources and experiences.

The right lawyer for mass-tort litigations may not be your local lawyer. Mass tort cases filed all over the country are often consolidated into a single courtroom in order to move the many lawsuits through the courts in the most effective and efficient way. A lawyer experienced with the multidistrict litigation process with the ability to represent clients in all 50 states, is likely to be a good fit for mass tort litigation.

TruLaw is not afraid to take on the largest drug and medical device companies in the world. We work with trusted legal affiliates to make sure that TruLaw clients have the resources and experiences needed to hold big business accountable when they put profits over people.

Your IVC Filter lawsuit is designed to help you financially recover from injuries that were caused by someone else. We hope putting your trust in TruLaw will take away your concern of protecting your legal rights., but it is most important to us that you spend your time recovering physically.

Your lawsuit should assist in covering your medical bills, the amount of income and benefits that you lost as a result of your injury and, if your injuries are permanent, we will look to recover for your permanent disfigurement.

In addition, it is always our hope that your lawsuit will help us to remove dangerous drugs, toxins and devices from the market. We are not only lawyers, but also safety advocates that believe in getting information out to the public so no more people are injured. We hope you will join us in the role as a safety advocate.

We understand the frustration in waiting to hear about settlements in product liability lawsuits. Unfortunately, in drug and device cases, we have no choice but to sue some of the most profitable companies in the world. Big Pharma has deep pockets and lawsuits are a cost of doing business for them. They are not inclined to settle until it makes business sense to them.

TruLaw lawyers building our cases with an eye on winning in court as well as settlement, when we believe that is the best result for our clients. We will never settle without advising you of your options, and we will keep you posted on our progress, to the extent we are legally able.

A corporation, by definition is profit seeking. There is no requirement that a corporation act morally. Unfortunately, too often we see dangerous drugs, devices and products remain on the market when corporations prioritize profit over people.

If these same corporations warn consumers of these risks, there is no case. We only pursue lawsuits on behalf of individuals who were not warned of the risk associated with the dangerous drug, device or product on the market.

TruLaw is pursuing IVC Filter / Blood Clot Filter lawsuits because we believe consumers were not properly warned of the risks of injury.

Did a recent IVC Filter or Blood Clot Filter commercial grab your attention? Did you find our site because you were wondering if you qualify for IVC Filter lawsuits?

We built the IVC Filter Instant Case Evaluator as a no cost/no obligation place for you to find answers about your legal rights. If you found us today, you are looking for instant answers to whether you should file an IVC Filter lawsuit and we want to help you. We believe that in order for you to make important decisions about your health and your legal rights, you need to start with information. We provide you this valuable information so you are prepared to talk to a lawyer.