Information about Bard IVC Filter Lawsuits from Lawyers Handling IVC Filter Lawsuits

No-Cost, No-Obligation Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit Review

IVC Filter Lawsuits

Doctors May Use IVC Filters More Often Now That Laser Removal Is An Option

Bard IVC Filter Lawsuits

The FDA recommends that the device be left in place no longer than 30 days to avoid life-threatening complications

Monday, January 10, 2022 - It is expected that the number of IVC filter implants will increase dramatically now that surgeons have been given the green light by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to use laser technology to extract the device. Surgeons may be more confident in their ability to retrieve the device without breaking it into irretrievable pieces. According to the Phillips Inc., website, "Philips IVC Filter Removal Laser Sheath -- CavaClear -- is intended to safely ablate tissue to remove embedded IVC filters." The CavaClear was designated as a breakthrough medical device and rushed to market to try and help the thousands of IVC filter patients whose device has become encapsulated in scar tissue and beyond removal. Hundreds of patients whose life is threatened or the loved ones of those who have died have filed IVC filter lawsuits seeking reimbursement of medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Lawsuits allege the filter breaks apart during the retrieval process because more force must be used to pull it from the artery due to scarring. Lawsuits allege negligence and an inherent device design failure, on the part of Bard, the maker of the IVC filter.

Many surgeons may have shied away from implanting the device because of the BardIVC filter complications that can occur if the filter is left in place too long and becomes encapsulated in scar tissue, tilt, break, and migrate to the vital organs and become embedded there. The FDA last month approved Phillips to begin marketing their IVC filter laser removal system to surgeons that use the filters in certain situations. IVC filters can be the solution to blood clots reaching the heart lungs or brain in incidences after surgery and after a traumatic injury when blood clots usually occur. IVC filters are used to treat venous thromboembolism, the third leading cause of heart-related deaths behind heart attacks and strokes. Venous thromboembolism may result in deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism. Deep vein thrombosis is when blood clots form in the deep veins and travel to the heart and pulmonary embolism refers to a clot traveling to the lungs. Both situations are life-threatening and surgeons may opt to use an IVC filter to trap excessive blood clots. No one is questioning the efficacy of using an IVC filter to trap blood clots as the spider-like contraption works well. Up until the advent of laser technology, surgeons were forced to leave the device in place rather than perform major surgery to cut the device out from the artery. Lasers now allow surgeons to cut and cauterize the scar tissue to extract the device more safely.

In describing their new laser IVC filter retrieval technology Phillips echoed the concerns of plaintiffs who I have been injured by the irretrievable medical device. "Failure rates for IVC filter removal can be high and prior to CavaClear, limited options for removal existed if the filter became difficult to remove. Advanced retrieval tools and techniques are required if the IVC filter becomes embedded in the vasculature. Physicians previously had very few tools to remove the filter when complications occurred and until now there were no FDA-approved devices for this type of advanced removal,"">

More Recent IVC Filter Lawsuit News:

No-Cost, No-Obligation Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit Case Review for Persons or Families of Persons Who Suffered from Organ Damage, Severe Bleeding, Stroke, or Death

OnderLaw, LLC is a St. Louis personal injury law firm handling serious injury and death claims across the country. Its mission is the pursuit of justice, no matter how complex the case or strenuous the effort. The Onder Law Firm has represented clients throughout the United States in pharmaceutical and medical device litigation such as Pradaxa, Lexapro and Yasmin/Yaz, where the firm's attorneys held significant leadership roles in the litigation, as well as Actos, DePuy, Risperdal and others, and other law firms throughout the nation often seek its experience and expertise on complex litigation.