No Support of inferior vena cava filters in Trauma Care

Written by admin

According to a recent cohort study conducted by Researchers at Boston University School of Medicine (MA, USA), trauma patients who received an inferior vena cava filter to prevent blood clots in the lungs (pulmonary embolism) had no survival advantage. The study published in JAMA Surgery showed patients who received IVC filters to prevent pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis after trauma has no decrease death rate. The study involves 451 IVC recipients and 1,343 controls that underwent trauma care at Boston Medical Center between August 1, 2003, and December 31, 2012, to figure out the implantation of IVC filter in trauma patients affects overall mortality or not. The researcher’s study conclude that there was no significant overall difference in mortality or cause of mortality when patients who did not have an IVC filter implanted were compared with those who had an IVC filter implanted.

According to the lead author Shayna Sarosiek, MD and colleagues at the Boston University School of Medicine, these data indicate that IVC filters should not be placed in trauma patients in an effort to decrease all-cause mortality. IVC filters did not save a significant number of these patients and doctors removed just 8 percent of the filters after 3.8 years. The FDA safety communication states that the risk of device perforation greatly increased the longer the device stayed in the body and recommending they be removed after 39 days, but before 54 days. Given the expected morbidity of long-term IVC filter use, filters should be removed as soon as a patient’s contraindication to anticoagulation resolves.” The main conclusion and measures of the study were hospital mortality and brain injury severity.

IVC filter is a metallic cage like device that traps a blood clot before it can reach the lungs. It is used in those patients who may develop a PE and cannot be treated by using anticoagulant medication. The FDA approved the device in 1979. The IVC filter is placed in the inferior vena cava, the largest vein in the body. In recent years, a number of studies have raised serious concerns about the risk and complications associated with the device. Types of reports include device migration, filter fracture, embolization (movement of the entire filter or fracture fragments to the heart or lungs), perforation of the IVC, and difficulty removing the device. This complication occurs when IVC filters are left in place after the risk of pulmonary embolism has passed, the legs or struts that extend out in a spider-like fashion may fracture or break.

There are several numbers of IVC filter lawsuit filed by plaintiffs against the manufacturers of IVC filter alleging that medical devices have design defects and were not properly tested before going to market. The lawsuits allege several claims, including negligence, failure to warn, liability for design defects, breach of implied warranty, failure to recall, fraudulent misrepresentation, and concealing evidence. Experienced IVC filter lawyers are currently reviewing potential claims across the country from patients and their family members. The plaintiff’s claim everyone who had IVC filters implanted in them make up a class which should be compensated for medical monitoring expenses.

If you or somebody you know was injured or suffered complications or death from any of IVC Filters, contact for a free case consultation. All cases are pursued on a contingency fee basis there are never any out-of-pocket costs to hire our IVC filter attorneys unless we win your case. The Medical Device Litigation Group at our law firm is an experienced team of trial lawyers that focus on the representation of plaintiffs in Bard IVC Filter Lawsuits.


About the author


Leave a Comment