An Overview of the IVC Filter Case – The Studies That Relate to the Litigation

Several IVC filter lawsuits have been filed across the United States by injured consumers.  Many of these lawsuits have been consolidated into what is known as a multidistrict litigation, or MDL.  These lawsuits and others are proceeding against defendants that include Bard and Cook Medical.  As is the case with almost any defective medical device lawsuit, studies are being used as evidence by defendants that tend to corroborate their claims that using the devices in question led to the injuries and damages that were suffered.  Below you’ll find a brief overview of this legal situation and a few examples of studies that have been published that relate to the use of IVC filters.

IVC Filter Lawsuits – A Brief Summary

IVC filters are also known as inferior vena cava filters.  These are small devices that are implanted inside a patient in order to stop blood clots that have formed from traveling to the lungs.  When blood clots travel to the lungs and settle there, they are known as pulmonary embolisms.  Unfortunately, several different reports have been released that state that these devices have malfunctioned in different ways.  Some allegations state that the ‘legs’ on these devices broke off, leading to the device drifting.  Other allegations state that the devices simply failed to prevent traveling clots.  These allegations have led to the filing of IVC lawsuits.

2010 Study of Bard Recovery Filter and G2 Filter

A study was published in 2010, a link to which can be found here, that looked at the Bard Recovery Filter and the Bard G2 Filter systems.  A review of available data revealed that the Bard Recovery Filter system showed a failure rate of approximately 25 percent.  A similar look at the Bard G2 Filter revealed that the failure rate for that product was approximately 12 percent.  The researchers concluded that both of these products should be discontinued.

2012 Study of Cook Celect and Gunther Tulip

In 2012, a study was published that concluded that in 86 percent of all of the cases studied, a full perforation of at least one component through the IVC wall was identified in the patient.  This means that in these cases, a malfunction of some sort occurred with the product that led to some level of internal bleeding.  A link to an abstract of this study can be found here.

2015 IVC Filter vs. Blood Thinners Study

Finally, in 2015 a study was released that compared the use of IVC filters to blood thinners as they relate to the ability to prevent pulmonary embolisms.  A link to that study can be found here.  The researchers concluded that the subjects who had an IVC filter implanted were twice as likely to suffer from a pulmonary embolism as the subjects who were using blood-thinning medications.

Any or all of these studies among others could become part of the ongoing IVC filter litigation.  If you have been harmed by one of these products, contact the IVC filter lawyers at Parilman & Associates today to schedule a free initial consultation.  You can either email the firm or call 800-800-DRUG.