• Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Youtube
  • TESTIMONIALS
  • BLOG
  • ARTICLES
Call us: 800-349-0127
Blizzard Law PLLC
  • Home
  • Our Firm ▼
    • Attorneys
    • Testimonials
  • Practice Areas ▼
    • ◂ Personal Injury
      • 18-Wheeler Accidents
      • First Responders Deer Park Fire Injuries
      • Industrial Accidents
      • Maritime Accidents
      • Wrongful Death
      • Workplace Injuries
    • ◂ Dangerous Drugs
      • ◂ Birth Defect Litigation
        • Celexa
        • Lexapro
      • Talcum Powder
      • Valsartan
    • ◂ Defective Devices
      • CPAP Recall Cancer Lawsuit
      • Hernia Mesh
      • IVC Filters
      • JUUL and Vaping Lawsuits
      • Minimally Invasive Brain Surgery
      • Transvaginal Mesh
    • ◂ Medical Malpractice
      • Birth Injuries
      • Lap Chole Errors
    • ◂ Sexual Assault
      • USC OBGYN Assault
      • Sexual Assault Resources
    • ◂ Human Trafficking
      • Human Trafficking Resources
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Menu Menu

IVC Filters Offer No Benefit to Trauma Patients

October 17, 2016/in Defective Devices /by damg16

For years, Inferior Vena Cava filters (IVC filters) were used to help mitigate the risk of blood clots in patients who cannot take traditional blood thinners. An increasing number of lawsuits claim IVC filters are defective, cause serious side effects, and have incredibly high rates of fracture. A new study published in the Journal of The American Medical Association (JAMA) found IVC filters did not provide any benefits to trauma patients.

IVC Filter Usage

Patients who have experienced some type of trauma, like an accident or surgery, cannot take blood thinners to reduce their risk of blood clots because it could cause dangerous bleeding. Instead, surgeons often utilize IVC filters to catch blood clots before they travel into the heart or lungs and cause a life-threatening condition called pulmonary embolism (PE).

The newly published JAMA study advises doctors to rethink the use of IVC filters in trauma patients. The study looked at both patients who had received IVC filters and those who had not received IVC filters and found no difference in mortality rates regardless of whether a filter was used. Doctors also discovered only 8% of IVC filter patients had their device removed within 3.8 years of implantation. The FDA recommends filters removal between 29 and 54 days after implantation to decrease the risk of suffering complications.

The study recommends IVC filter use “should be reexamined because filter removal rates are low and there is increased risk of morbidity in patients with filters that remain in place.”

The seven most dangerous IVC filters most commonly named in lawsuits include:

1. Cook Günther Tulip Filter – Approved by the FDA in 2003, the Günther Tulip was one of Cook Medical’s first IVC filters. However, a study in 2012 in Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology found 86% of patients with Günther Tulip IVC filters experienced device perforation of the inferior vena cava wall.

2. Cook Celect Filter – Released onto the market in 2008, it did not take long for reports of Celect filter device failure to come in. The Celect proved to be no better than its predecessor, the Günther Tulip, at resisting failure.

3. Bard Recovery Filter – The Recovery filter was C.R. Bard’s first IVC filter to hit the market in the U.S. when it received approval in 2002. However, as early as 2004, the company received reports that the devices were causing serious complications. In 2005, Bard voluntarily removed the Recovery filter from the market.

4. Bard G2 Filter – While the Recovery filter was being recalled, Bard released the G2 filter onto the market. Although the G2 was supposed to have enhanced fracture resistance, the FDA continued to receive reports of device failure.

5. Bard G2 Express – Released shortly after the G2, the G2 Express proved to be just as dangerous. The G2 Express has a fracture rate of 12%, and only half of fractured devices can be successfully removed.

6. Cordis OptEase – Not only was the OptEase by Cordis dangerous for its failure rate, a labeling error printed an arrow pointing the wrong direction, causing devices to be implanted upside down. Only when the device is in the upright position can it be anchored in place by the struts. The printing error led to many patients having the device migrate through the body, causing severe complications.

7. Cordis TrapEase – Although the Cordis TrapEase filter contained better labeling and instructions, a 2011 study found the TrapEase had a higher risk of fracture compared to other IVC filters.

IVC Filter Litigation

Patients in the various IVC filter litigations believe manufacturers like C.R. Bard, Cook Medical, and Cordis Corporation failed to adequately warn them of the risks associated with the defective medical devices. Thousands of IVC filter lawsuits now seek justice from more than a dozen manufacturers. The first Cook Medical IVC filter lawsuits will go to trial in early 2017.

Tags: IVC filter
Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share by Mail
https://www.blizzardlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/prairie-view-a-m-university-249515.jpg 872 1308 damg16 https://www.blizzardlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/logo-blizzard-law-pllc-2-300x92.png damg162016-10-17 13:05:202019-11-07 17:01:47IVC Filters Offer No Benefit to Trauma Patients

CATEGORIES

  • Articles
  • Dangerous Drugs
  • Defective Devices
  • DWI
  • Hurricane Harvey Claims
  • Medical Malpractice
  • News
  • Personal Injury
  • Uncategorized

Recent Post

  • Blizzard Law files lawsuit on behalf of local student against a DoubleTree by Hilton hotel in North Austin May 19, 2022
  • Phillips Cannot Seem to Get its Sleep Apnea Recall Right April 14, 2022
  • Blizzard Law PLLC has filed a lawsuit on behalf of I.R. against Rice University for sexual abuse of a child. February 27, 2022
  • Update on the Phillips CPAP Product Defect Lawsuit February 21, 2022
  • American Academy of Sleep Medicine Issues Guidance on CPAP Recalls February 14, 2022
  • FDA Update on Phillips Sleep Apnea Machines Does Not Bode Well for Consumers January 31, 2022
  • Philips CPAP Recall: Foam Can Cause Cancer January 25, 2022
  • Hilton Hotels Hit with Record $44M Negligence Verdict for Facilitating a Sexual Assault of a Hotel Guest November 29, 2021

WHAT PEOPLE SAY

I cannot say enough good things about my experience with Blizzard Law! As an out-of-state client, I was skeptical about obtaining first-rate representation for my sexual assault case. After my first meeting with Anna and Ed I knew I was in the right hands… ”

Kathleen Dawson blizzard law five stars

I began working with Blizzard Law on behalf of my 2 brothers and me about a year after my father passed away from a Myocardial Infarction as a result of taking the drug Vioxx.”

Alyssa Grassoblizzard law five stars
ALL TESTIMONIALS
Top Houston Litigation Attorneys

LET US KNOW ABOUT YOUR CASE

CALL US
800-349-0127 | 713-844-3750

CONTACT US MEET THE LAWYERS

ABOUT BLIZZARD LAW

Blizzard Law PLLC was founded by trial lawyers who wanted to take the skill and knowledge gained from representing large corporations and insurance companies and use it for the benefit of individuals injured by defective drugs and products.

QUICK LINK

Our Firm

Attorneys

Blog

Articles

Contact

PARTNER LOGO


CONTACT

5020 Montrose Blvd, Ste 410
Houston, TX 77006

LATEST NEWS

  • Blizzard Law files lawsuit on behalf of local student against a DoubleTree by Hilton hotel in North AustinMay 19, 2022 - 7:18 pm
  • Phillips Cannot Seem to Get its Sleep Apnea Recall RightApril 14, 2022 - 8:08 pm
  • Blizzard Law PLLC has filed a lawsuit on behalf of I.R. against Rice University for sexual abuse of a child.February 27, 2022 - 1:25 pm
  • Update on the Phillips CPAP Product Defect LawsuitFebruary 21, 2022 - 3:39 pm
Disclaimer: This is an advertisement. This web site is designed for general informational purposes only. This information or contacting me through this website does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Legal Marketing Solutions by USAttorneys.com - Damg Theme by DAMG
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Youtube
  • AREAS SERVED
  • PRIVACY POLICY
  • DISCLAIMER
How Pharmaceutical Litigation Differs From Other Personal Injury Lawsuits Pharmaceutical lawsuits Teen drivers Dangers Faced By Teen Drivers
Scroll to top