inferior Vena Cava filters – IVC Filter, side effects are designed to catch blood clots before they move into the lungs. Roughly 200,000 blood clot filters are implanted to prevent pulmonary embolisms each year, with the market expected to reach million dollars in 2015, according to the Research organizations.
Surgeons often choose to implant IVC filters when patients with pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis have contraindications to anticoagulation drugs.
“However, IVC filters are not benign, and mounting evidence suggests their complication rate may be higher than previously recognized,” reports the CardioCCM Journal.
Former recipients have filed more than 100 IVC filter lawsuits against manufacturers C.R. Bard, Cook Medical and Cordis (Johnson & Johnson),alleging punctured veins and organs, fractured devices, chronic health issues and life-threatening events.
In 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration – FDA announced a safety alert describing a marked increase in adverse event reports related to use of IVC filters. Despite the popularity of IVC filters as a means to treat blood clot risks in certain categories of patients.
This anticoagulant has been linked to serious and even deadly side effects.
Patients who suffered complications from Bard, Cook and Optease ‘s IVC filter – inferior Vena Cava filters filed lawsuits against the manufacturers. The plaintiffs allege the filters migrated apart causing organ damage and other complications.
Of these IVC filter side effects, 328 involved device migration, 146 involved embolizations after detachment of device components, 70 involved perforation of the IVC, and 56 involved filter fracture. Much of the medical community believes that this large number of adverse events is related to the heart filter remaining in place for longer than necessary.
While these side effects are not common (less than 10-20% of patients), many do report issues stemming from the placement and complication of the IVC while inside of the body.
Numerous small published articles and case studies report describe similar issues to the above. Most notably:
Even though the cases above are the exception, and not the rule, most radiologists object to doing prophylactic filter insertions in patients who do not have thromboembolic diseases. For the most part, whenever possible, interventional radiologists would rather start the patient on anticoagulants than use an IVC, even if requested or referred via a doctor.