Ghai Law Firm
Call for a free consultation:
(770) 792-1000
  • ABOUT
    • Testimonials
    • Join Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Personal Injury
      • Pedestrian Accident
      • Car Accidents
        • Speeding Accident
        • Drinking and Driving Accidents
        • Left Hand Turn Accident
        • Rear-End Collision
        • Reckless Driving Accident
        • Uber Accidents
        • Hit-and-Run Accidents
        • Texting and Driving Accident
          • Texting and Driving Under 18
      • Truck Accident
        • Lane Usage Accident
        • Traumatic Brain Injury
      • Product Liability
        • Defective Drugs
        • Defective Medical Device
      • Premises Liability
        • Slip and Fall Accidents
      • Wrongful Death
      • Dog Bite
    • Bankruptcy
      • Debt Relief
      • Credit Card Debt
      • Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
      • Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
      • Foreclosure Bankruptcy
      • Free Legal Case Review
      • Medical Bills Bankruptcy
      • Rebuild Your Credit
      • Wage Garnishments
  • Areas We Serve
    • Kennesaw Personal Injury Lawyer
      • Kennesaw Bankruptcy Lawyer
    • Acworth Personal Injury Lawyer
      • Acworth Bankruptcy Lawyer
    • Marietta Personal Injury Lawyer
      • Marietta Bankruptcy Lawyer
    • Smyrna Personal Injury Lawyer
  • FAQs
  • Blog
  • Videos
  • Contact

Winter 2018/2019 Updates: Scientific Evidence on IVC Filters & Litigation

Home » Winter 2018/2019 Updates: Scientific Evidence on IVC Filters & Litigation

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have traditionally been used in patients who suffer from pulmonary embolism or venous thromboembolism to prevent another blood clotting event by supposedly trapping blood clots in the inferior vena cava and preventing emboli from reaching the lungs. These filters are typically placed in patients only when anticoagulant therapy (i.e. taking blood thinner medication) has either been ineffective or cannot be used for one reason or another, and the patient faces a risk of pulmonary embolism. Still, unfortunately, IVC filters can break apart, erode, and puncture organs and tissue, causing serious damage.

Recent Studies Released In December 2018 Show a Risk of Mortality

Shocking studies recently released and published in JAMA Internal Medicine revealed that patients are more likely to die after getting IVC filters, especially seniors (aged 65 and older) hospitalized for an acute pulmonary embolism. According to experts, complications associated with the placement of the filter could explain the increased risk of mortality. The results of this new study are consistent with findings of previous studies assessing mortality associated with the use of the filters in patients with venous thromboembolism. Concerns about these filters began to surface in 2010, when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received more than 900 reports of adverse events and issued an alert informing operators to remove them as soon as possible.

For a free legal consultation, call (770) 792-1000

Medical Experts Express Serious Concerns over IVC Filter Overuse in the United States

Still, according to reports, more than 13 percent of (i.e. one in six) elderly Medicare fee-for-services beneficiaries with an average age of almost 78 years old who have been hospitalized for acute pulmonary embolism currently receive these filters, even though cardiac perforation and death led to the 2010 FDA safety advisory (which was then updated in 2014). This is harrowing, given that medical experts who have specifically studied IVC filters have said that, until the medical community obtains additional, high-quality data from studies, they caution against the overuse of these filters in patients at risk of venous thromboembolism.

Other doctors have also explicitly come out and made statements that IVC filters are just blatantly overused in the U.S., in spite of an overall lack of data. According to these experts, even in patients who suffer from acute pulmonary embolism and/or proximal deep vein thrombosis who cannot initially rely on anticoagulation therapy, everything should be done to resolve that contraindication and ensure that anticoagulant therapy is used, instead, once the filter is removed. According to these experts, warnings from the FDA were simply insufficient in producing a real decrease in IVC filter use, and did not fully address the problem.

Concerns Also Escalate Over Device Removal 

One study suggested that sending automatic reminders to doctors telling them to consider removing a patient’s IVC filter may cut down on complications. This is based on the assumption that some of the device’s complications and adverse impacts could be related to how long the filters remain in the patient. There is no question at this point that these filters should be removed as soon as they are no longer absolutely necessary; however, unfortunately, retrieval rates remain dangerously low.

According to medical reports, concerns also remain about how to address issues in patients with chronically-implanted IVC filters, as proactive removal may, in some circumstances, end up having negative consequences for a patient. In sum, it appears that additional data is necessary before filters that have been in place for many years and in patients who are not experiencing negative symptoms are removed en masse because the current, highly-involved removal procedures can put patients at risk without providing any significant benefits. 

Click to contact our personal injury lawyers today

Cook Inc. Prevails In “Bellwether Trial,” But the Battle Is Far From Over

In December 2018, a decision came in the in the IVC filter multidistrict litigation in the Southern District of Indiana brought against Cook Medical’s IVC filters granting summary judgment to the defendants under the claim that the plaintiff in the case failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact and sustain her burden of proof on the proximate causation element of the case. The case was brought by a plaintiff who alleged that several years after having the filter inserted, she experienced pain and a portion of the filter actually protruding from her skin, causing her to have to undergo surgery to remove the rest of the filter. The lawsuit not only alleged that the filters are defective and cause harm, but that the labeling and instructions accompanying the product did not adequately warn doctors and patients about the risks associated with it.

The plaintiff specifically argued that, under Georgia’s intermediary doctrine, she could prevail on her warnings claims because the product’s warnings were inadequate and they caused her injuries and defendant manufacturers breached Georgia’s “post-sale duty” to warn physicians of the filter’s risks of fracturing and perforating. However, the judge decided that the plaintiff failed to establish causation in her negligent failure to warn and strict liability claims, where testimony from her surgeon who had implanted the device and who reported that, regardless of whether there had been additional, specific instructions, he would not have done anything different as a result, was key to the judge’s decision.

Complete a Free Case Evaluation form now

Contact Our Georgia Defective Medical Device Attorneys

If you or a loved one has been harmed by an IVC filter, it is crucial that you work with an experienced attorney who knows how to bring the right claims into court and knows how to litigate these claims properly so that you and your loved ones can obtain the recovery you deserve. A significant part of this knowledge also involves working with the right medical experts in order to establish that negligence caused the plaintiff harm. Contact our Georgia defective medical product attorneys today to find out more.

Call or text (770) 792-1000 or complete a Free Case Evaluation form

Defective Medical Products Blog Posts:

Holding Makers of “Roundup” Accountable

Hundreds of plaintiffs around the country are suing agricultural products giant Monsanto, claiming that their widely-used weed-killing product “Roundup”—advertised as completely safe—has

Diabetes Drug INVOKANA Found to Cause Amputations & Diabetic Ketoacidosis

INVOKANA or canagliflozin is an oral drug administered to patients with type 2 diabetes over the last four years to reduce blood sugar glucose levels. The drug works as a sodium-glucose cotransporter

Taxotere: Cancer Drug Class Action Lawsuits

Chemotherapy drug Taxotere is at the center of a class action lawsuit alleging the drug’s manufacturer (Sanofi-Aventis) failed to warn patients and treating physicians of the increased risk of

Hernia Mesh Complications – What You Should Know

The United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA) continues to approve hernia mesh products, even though several thousands have reported injuries and some of these products have shown to be

Free Case Evaluation

Convenient and Confidential

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Bankruptcy FAQ

    Bankruptcy FAQ

    Can You Keep Your House If You File For Chapter 7 Bankruptcy?

    Can You Keep Your House If You File For Chapter 7 Bankruptcy?

    Can Creditors Be Sued For Trying To Collect Debt After You File For Bankruptcy

    Can Creditors Be Sued For Trying To Collect Debt After You File For Bankruptcy

    Let Ghai Law Fight For You.

    We’re here to provide help when you need us. Fill out this form below and I’ll reach out to discuss your case.

      Ghai Law Firm
      Call for a free consultation:
      (770) 792-1000

      Office Location

      LAW OFFICES OF ROGER GHAI

      1301 SHILOH RD NW STE 430

      KENNESAW GA   30144

      Mon-Fri: 9AM - 6PM

      Important Links

      • About
      • Practice Areas
      • Areas We Serve
      • Contact

      Practice Areas

      Personal Injury Lawyer Bankruptcy Attorney

      Ghai Law Firm

      Cobb County, Marietta, Kennesaw, Acworth

      "The Attorney"

      Site Map
      © Copyright 2023 Law Offices of Roger Ghai
      • ABOUT
        • Testimonials
        • Join Us
      • Practice Areas
        • Personal Injury
          • Pedestrian Accident
          • Car Accidents
            • Speeding Accident
            • Drinking and Driving Accidents
            • Left Hand Turn Accident
            • Rear-End Collision
            • Reckless Driving Accident
            • Uber Accidents
            • Hit-and-Run Accidents
            • Texting and Driving Accident
              • Texting and Driving Under 18
          • Truck Accident
            • Lane Usage Accident
            • Traumatic Brain Injury
          • Product Liability
            • Defective Drugs
            • Defective Medical Device
          • Premises Liability
            • Slip and Fall Accidents
          • Wrongful Death
          • Dog Bite
        • Bankruptcy
          • Debt Relief
          • Credit Card Debt
          • Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
          • Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
          • Foreclosure Bankruptcy
          • Free Legal Case Review
          • Medical Bills Bankruptcy
          • Rebuild Your Credit
          • Wage Garnishments
      • Areas We Serve
        • Kennesaw Personal Injury Lawyer
          • Kennesaw Bankruptcy Lawyer
        • Acworth Personal Injury Lawyer
          • Acworth Bankruptcy Lawyer
        • Marietta Personal Injury Lawyer
          • Marietta Bankruptcy Lawyer
        • Smyrna Personal Injury Lawyer
      • FAQs
      • Blog
      • Videos
      • Contact