A new study in the Annals of Surgery found that preventative, or prophylactic placement of inferior vena cava filters, also known as IVC filters, had no effect on the survival rate of trauma patients, and were in fact associated with an increase in deep vein thrombosis. The study adds yet more fuel to the legal fire raging over the controversial medical devices.
IVC filters are small, spider-like objects inserted into the vena cava to catch or break up passing blood clots and reduce patients’ risk of embolic events, such as stroke. Producers of IVC filters, such as Bard and Cook Medical, claim that the devices are effective and potentially life saving. Yet an increasing amount of evidence indicates that IVC filters are both less safe and less effective than originally thought.
Bard’s Recovery and G2 filters and Cook’s Celect and Gunther Tulip filters have come under particularly close scrutiny. Internal reports from Bard Medical show that the company was aware its IVC filters posed an unreasonable risk to patients almost a year before it was recalled. And various studies have shown Cook IVC filters pose an especially high risk of tilting inside or penetrating the vena cava.
Two multidistrict litigations have been created to handle Bard IVC filter lawsuits and Cook IVC filter lawsuits. The Bard IVC filter MDL, centralized in August, already includes over 50 pending federal cases, while the Cook IVC filter MDL contains roughly 130 cases.
Researchers analyzed four years of trauma patient data and found no variation in survival among patient groups with different IVC filter placement rates. Additionally, IVC filter placement was linked to an increased incidence of deep vein thrombosis.
If you or a loved one was injured by a failed Bard or Cook IVC filter, you may be eligible to receive legal compensation. You should contact the IVC attorneys at Lopez McHugh today to receive a free legal consultation, and find out whether you may qualify to join one of the fast-growing IVC filter MDLs.