Product News and Recalls

New Study: Retrievable IVC Filters Offer No Benefit

retrievable ivc filters shown to have no benefitAccording to a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, retrievable interior vena cava (IVC) filters offer “no benefit in terms of pulmonary embolism recurrence or mortality”. A recent Forbes article details the results of the study and their significance to IVC filter use.

According to Forbes, the study was conducted by a team of French physicians among hospitalized patients suffering from acute, symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Two hundred of the patients received a retrievable IVC filter as well anticoagulation treatment, another 200 received only anticoagulation. After three months, 6 patients from the filter and anticoagulation group and 3 patients from the anticoagulation-only group had suffered recurrent pulmonary embolism—an insignificant difference in risk. After an additional three months, one more patient from each group had experienced recurrent pulmonary embolism.

The results led the investigators to conclude that retrievable IVC filters have no effect in reducing the risk of pulmonary embolism recurrence or mortality. Forbes writes that the physicians had expected a much higher rate of recurrent pulmonary embolism in the anticoagulation group based on previous studies as well the general proliferation of IVC filter use.

Inferior vena cava filters have been in use since the 1960s, with an estimated 100,000 implanted. The filters are intended to prevent blood clots from forming and travelling through the body, which can lead to strokes or other life-threatening events. However, the devices have proven to be potentially deadly in themselves. Several studies show that pieces of IVC filters, and sometimes entire devices, can break away and become lodged in vital organs such as the heart and lungs.

Bard IVC filter lawsuits allege that Bard devices are particularly problematic. Bard IVC lawsuits claim that as early as 2003, Bard was in possession of data that showed its IVC filters posed an unreasonable risk of injury due to splintering or dislocation. The company allegedly did not inform the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of its findings, and kept its dangerous Recovery IVC filter on the market until 2005, when Bard came out with its new G2 filter. Since then, 921 adverse events reports have been filed with the FDA, many of which reference fatalities.

In March of this year, Lopez McHugh successfully represented a plaintiff in the second Bard IVC filter lawsuit in the nation to proceed to trial. Attorneys presented evidence that Bard knew of the unreasonable risk its Recovery IVC filter posed yet continued to market and distribute the device, misrepresenting the safety and efficacy of its filter and imperiling the lives of those treated with it.

Many Bard IVC filter lawsuits are still pending. Meanwhile, Bard continues to withhold important safety information about its defective IVC filters. If you or a loved one suffered injury or death from a failed Bard IVC filter, contact the IVC filter lawyers at Lopez McHugh immediately for a free legal consultation. You may qualify to receive compensation through your own Bard IVC filter lawsuit.