IVC Filters Kept on Market Despite Known Fatal Flaws

IVC Filters Kept on Market Despite Known Fatal Flaws | Pintas & Mullins Law Firm

According to C.R. Bard'€™s internal documents, the company was well aware that its G2, G2 Express and Recovery IVC filters were associated with dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries. Despite this knowledge, Bard kept its IVC filters on market, selling hundreds of thousands. The IVC filter lawyers are now accepting claims of serious injury from C.R. Bard’s filters.

Interior vena cava (IVC) filters are surgically implanted to stop blood clots from entering the lungs and heart. These filters are typically recommended for patients who cannot tolerate or do not respond to pharmaceutical blood thinners. There are two types of IVC filters: permanent and temporary. Temporary filters are designed to be retrievable, and must be removed as soon as the risk of blood clotting subsides.

Unfortunately, we now know that temporary IVC filters consistently fracture, migrate away from the implant site, and cause serious, life-threatening complications. Thousands of patients have been told their temporary IVC filters cannot be removed due to device defects, leaving them no choice but to live knowing they are implanted with a ticking time bomb.

This problem is so pervasive that there are now special clinics devoted to removing failed IVC filters. Dr. William Kuo runs one such facility, the Stanford Health Care IVC Filter Clinic. He told NBC News that €œ"the number of complications [and] the frequency of severe failures makes it obvious that it was never safe to be implanted."

Dr. Kuo and his team have developed advanced techniques for removing failed IVC filters and its pieces. He estimates that he has removed 1,000 failed filters over the past decade, most of which were Bard filters. He stridently believes Bard’s IVC filters should have been recalled and pulled from market for moral, ethical and safety reasons.

Bard’s Failings

Bard's Recovery filter gained approval in 2002. Soon after, reports of deaths from filter migration and fractures started pouring in. Numerous studies found that the Recovery filter had a higher risk of serious complications compared to other IVC filters.

Despite this knowledge and repeated calls for further investigation, Bard continued selling the Recovery for years after, and even introduced a new filter onto market – the G2 – which is nearly identical to the Recovery.

The G2 series was put on market in 2005, with all the same problems as the Recovery. That same year, a Bard vice president wrote a memo expressing concerns about G2 migration, perforation, and tilting.

By 2010, Bard's internal documents showed the G2 had more fractures, migrations, and complications than any other IVC filter. The FDA issued its first safety alert regarding IVC filters the same year, urging doctors to remove the filters from patients as soon as possible. The FDA issued a second warning four years later.

Millions of patients have received IVC filters without knowing the true risks. We are currently representing IVC filter patients who suffered the following complications:

  • Filter migration, fracture or embolization
  • Difficulty removing the filter
  • Vein perforation or blocking
  • Lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT)

The longer an IVC filter remains inside a patient the more likely it is to cause serious, life-threatening complications. If you or someone you love had a temporary IVC filter implanted, contact our firm for a free case review. Even if you are unsure what type of filter it is, we will order medical records on your behalf to investigate your claim, free of charge. We accept clients nationwide.