A new study published in JAMA Surgery showed that IVC filters are not effective in saving the lives of trauma patients. The study showed no decrease in death rates in patients who received IVC filters to prevent pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis after trauma.
The risks associated with IVC filters have been well-known for quite some time and include IVC filter fracture, filter thrombosis, filter protrusion outside the IVC and lower-extremity venous thrombosis.
“This information, coupled with a lack of good-quality data regarding improvement in short-term mortality, should cause clinicians to consider the significant risks and expenses associated with the insertion of IVC filters,” researchers said. “There are known risks of IVC filter placement, but morbidity associated with IVC filters that remain in place is a significant concern.”
The JAMA Surgery study found that most IV filters are not removed from patients in spite of the FDA’s recommendation to remove them after 60 days.
The study concludes that IVC filters should not be placed in patients in order to decrease their mortality rate because they are an ineffective medical tool.
Medical device companies C.R. Bard, Cook Medical and Boston Scientific face injury lawsuits as a result of the defective filters. It has been reported that 25% of Bard’s Recovery filters fracture after implantation in a patient. In studies, Cook Medical’s filters perforated patients’ vena cavas. They also migrated out of place in about 40 percent of patients.
IVC filters are not effective methods of dealing with blood clots and pose risks that far outweigh any supposed benefits. So why are they being implanted? One need only look at the marketing campaigns of these medical devices to discover the answer.
If you or a loved one have been injured as a result of an IVC implant, please contact us immediately.