![]() ![]() The problem with this is that most of these IVC filters were not removed and a lot of removals became complicated if not impossible. One reason for the increase in the use of the IVC filter was the introduction of the newer, retrievable filters that appeared to make the use of IVC filters a less intrusive solution. Use of the Inferior Vena Cava as a way to prevent death from pulmonary embolism has climbed steadily over the past 3 decades with nearly 50,000 filters being placed each year by the end of the 1990s. According to the evidence reviewed for this JAMA article, however, this theory was never validated by empirical studies. The IVC filter was designed to capture a blood clot before it reaches the pulmonary circulation and should improve outcomes. In 2013, doctors writing for JAMA Internal Medicine asked, “How Could a Medical Device Be So Well Accepted Without Evidence of Efficacy?” IVC filter lawyers filing IVC filter cases are now asking the same questions of the manufacturers of these vena cava filters. Retrievable filters represent approximately 75% of the IVC filter market. An increase in the use of retrievable filters has coordinated with an increase in revenue for the manufacturers of IVC filters, as retrievable filters are more expensive. Critics believe the use of these devices in this manner puts patients at an unnecessary increased risk of complications.Įleven companies sell IVC filters in the US. IVC filters are frequently placed in patients at risk for pulmonary embolism (PE) when anticoagulant therapy cannot be used or is ineffective.Īlthough the original indication was to use IVC filters after anticoagulant therapy fails, increasingly IVC filters are being used before exhausting anticoagulant therapy, in a prophylactic manner. ![]() IVC filters are spider-shaped devices inserted into the largest vein of the body to capture blood clots and prevent them from reaching the lungs. This is the first time a jury has reached the conclusion that these widely used filters made by Cook Medical – as well as other manufacturers – are defective.ĥ000+ lawsuits against Cook Medical and 5,000+ lawsuits against C.R. Affected individuals require immediate removal and may be left with severe side effects.įebru– $3 Million verdict awarded to a Georgia woman who suffered serious complications after a Cook Medical IVC filter deteriorated inside her body. IVC Filters were designed to prevent blood clots from reaching the heart and lungs but they are failing at alarming rates. IVC filter lawsuits are currently being filed against the manufacturers of these devices because they put patients at an unnecessary increased risk of complications. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |