Recovery and G2 IVC Filters

An Inferior Vena Cava filter (IVC filter) is a tiny medical device that is implanted into the large vein which returns blood from the body to the heart.  This vein is also known as the Vena Cava.  The IVC filter is intended to “catch” any blood clots that may break away from arteries or veins before they travel through the heart to the lungs and become a deadly pulmonary embolism. The IVC filter is used in patients who are at risk of pulmonary embolism due to deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or other clotting disorder.

Normally, patients who have DVT or another clotting disorder are given anticoagulant medication but some patients cannot take anticoagulants. Devices currently in use were designed to be temporary and are designated “retrievable” IVC devices which should be removed after danger of a blood clot complication has passed.

Bard, formerly called C.R. Bard, is a New Jersey-based medical device manufacturer with an estimated annual revenue of about $3 billion.  Bard manufacturers a number of medical devices including urological, surgical and gynecological products and is one of the largest manufacturers of IVC filters.

Unfortunately, though the IVC filter was invented to protect these patients from harm but has instead, caused harm to many.  The device has been shown to cause multiple complications while in place and removal has proven to be difficult, potentially exposing the patient to additional harm.

Bard is facing hundreds of lawsuits by plaintiffs who claim that its Recovery IVC filter and G2-IVC filter caused medical injury.  This is not Bard’s first experience with lawsuits as they have faced thousands of legal claims regarding harm caused by transvaginal mesh and other medical devices

About Recovery IVC filter and G2 IVC filter

The Inferior Vena Cava is the largest vein in the human body.  It is the pathway that “used” blood travels from the body to the right side of the heart where it is pumped to the lungs to be re-oxygenated.  From the lungs it returns to the left side of the heart where it is pumped again to provide oxygen and nutrients to body tissues.

People with certain medical conditions such as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and other clotting disorders may develop blood clots which can break off and travel to the lungs.  A blood clot that travels to the lungs is known as a pulmonary embolism and may result in near-immediate death.

Most patients with DVT and related clotting disorders will be given anticoagulant medication but not all patients may tolerate this medicine.  IVC filters were designed to be implanted into the Inferior Vena Cava in these patients, to catch any blood clots which may have formed and are loose in the blood.

The IVC filter is a very small “basket” or “cage” made of metal which catches any blood clot and retains it until the body’s natural systems break it down.  The first IVC filters were “permanent” devices and were intended to be left in place.  When devices such as the Recovery IVC filter were approved, they were initially approved for permanent placement and later approved as “retrievable”, intended for removal after the danger of DVT or clot has passed.

Unfortunately, though currently marketed IVC filters are intended to be removed, retrieval may be difficult and many are left in place.  The devices may shift in place, perforate venous tissue, break apart or detach from the original placement.

Recovery and G2 IVC filter side effects and warnings

ivc filter lawsuit infographicThe Bard Recovery filter and Bard G2 filter have been named as two retrievable IVC filters that are prone to failure.  The Recovery filter was the first-generation filter, introduced in 2003.  The second generation or G2 was introduced in 2005, intended to replace the Recovery device.

Between 2005 and 2010, the FDA received 921 reports of serious adverse events involving IVC filters including reports of:

  • Device migration or movement to another area
  • Detached device components which travel to other organs (called device embolization)
  • Filter perforation
  • Filter fracture

Device migration was the most common adverse event and was responsible for 36 percent of adverse event reports with device embolization as the second most frequent.  The FDA issued an advisory in 2010 stating that complications could be caused by retrievable filters which remained in place for too long.  The FDA recommended that implants be removed as soon as the danger of blood clot had passed.

A 2010 study published in Journal for the American Medical Association (JAMA) Internal Medicine showed that about one-fourth of Bard G2 filters failed with device fracture or breakages.  The study reported the death of one patient though the cause of death was not specified.

A 2012 research study published in the CardioVascular Interventional Radiology journal indicated retrievable IVC filters manufactured by other companies also failed.  Two devices, the Gunther Tulip and Cook Celect were shown to have a high rate of Vena Cava wall puncture within 71 days of placement and showed a 40 percent migration rate.

Even though the retrievable IVC filter devices should be removed after risk of pulmonary embolism has passed, a 2013 study showed that less than 9 percent of devices were actually removed.

The same study identified other issues including:

  • 18.3 percent failure rate in device removal attempts
  • 7.8 percent venous thrombosis event, 25 percent of which were pulmonary embolism, the exact medical condition the devices were intended to prevent.

Because of these complications, in May 2014, the FDA advised that retrievable IVC filters should be removed within 29 to 54 days after implantation.

Because of the risk of device migration, fracture and detachment, IVC filters may also cause serious side effects including:

  • Perforation of blood vessels, tissues and other organs
  • Internal bleeding or hemorrhage
  • Severe pain
  • Additional blood clots
  • Pulmonary embolism
  • Cardiac Tamponade
  • Death

IVC filter Lawsuits

Bard is facing several hundred lawsuits regarding injury caused by the Recovery and G2 IVC filter devices.  Plaintiffs allege that the company knew the devices were prone to fracture and migration but failed to warn the public and the medical community.  Bard has tried unsuccessfully to have several of the lawsuits dismissed.

View Sources
  1. Berczi, V., (15 September 2007), Long-Term Retrievability of IVC Filters: Should We Abandon Permanent Devices?, Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology, Accessed on 05 May 2015 http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/21090787
  2. Burns, M., (22 March 2012), A brief history of inferior vena cava filters and analysis of current devices, Which Medical Device, Accessed on 05 May 2015 http://www.whichmedicaldevice.com/editorial/article/104/a-brief-history-of-inferior-vena-cava-filters-and-analysis-of-current-devices
  3. Cleveland Clinic, (2015), Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filter Retrieval, Accessed on 05 May 2015, Retrieved from http://my.clevelandclinic.org/services/heart/services/vascular_surgery/ivc-filter-retrieval
  4. EV Today, (07 May 2014), FDA Updates Safety Communication on IVC Filter Retrieval, Endovascular Today, Accessed on 05 May 2015 http://www.evtoday.com/2014/05/07/fda-updates-safety-communication-on-ivc-filter-retrieval
  5. Food and Drug Administration, (09 August 2010), Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filters: Initial Communication: Risk of Adverse Events with Long Term Use, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Accessed on 05 May 2015 http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm221707.htm
  6. Food and Drug Administration, (09 August 2010), Removing Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Initial Communication, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Accessed on 05 May 2015 http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm221676.htm
  7. Food and Drug Administration (06 May 2014), Removing Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: FDA Safety Communication, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Accessed on 05 May 2015 http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm396377.htm
  8. Nicholson, W., (08 November 2010), Prevalence of fracture and fragment embolization of Bard retrievable vena cava filters and clinical implications including cardiac perforation and tamponade, JAMA, Archives of Internal Medicine, Accessed on 05 May 2015 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20696949
  9. O’Riordan, M., (11 August 2010), FDA Warns of Adverse Events With Inferior Vena Cava Filters, Medscape, Accessed on 05 May 2015 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/726711
  10. Sarosiek, S., et al., (08 April 2013), Indications, complications, and management of inferior vena cava filters, JAMA, Accessed on 05 May 2015 http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1669107#RESULTS
  11. Tam, MD, (February 2012), Fracture and distant migration of the Bard Recovery filter: a retrospective review of 363 implantations for potentially life-threatening complications, Journal of Vascular Interventional Radiology, Accessed on 05 May 015 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22188776
  12. University of Michigan Health System, Vascular Surgery, (07 March 2013), Inferior Vena Cava filters, U-M Med School, Accessed on 05 May 2015 http://surgery.med.umich.edu/vascular/patient/treatments/ivc_filters.shtml
  13. Walsh, J., (2013), Safety and Effectiveness of Inferior Vena Cava Filters Used to Protect Against Pulmonary Embolus: A Technology Assessment, California Technology Assessment Forum, Accessed on 05 May 2015 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/744331_1