To Receive Your Free Information Packet, Please Fill Out this Form

  Yes        No


What are the most common IVC Filters to malfunction?
Some of the IVC filters most known to fail come from manufacturer C.R. Bard, Inc.  In a study done in 2010, doctors and researchers from the York Hospital in Pennsylvania studied two IVC filters: the Bard Peripheral Vascular's Recovery and the Bard G2 filter system.   They followed 80 patients who had received one of these IVC filters to determine the rate of complications. 
Of the 80 patients, 16 had one or more arms fracture from the filter.  A fourth of the Bard Recovery IVC Filters were known to have embolized, or sent fragments from the filter through the patients veins.  In most of those cases, the fragments traveled to the heart and caused life threatening complications such as rapid heartbeat and/or fluid buildup.  One of these patients experienced a sudden death as a result of the fragments from the IVC filter.
The Bard Recovery IVC Filter
Also known as the Bard Peripheral Vascular Recovery Filter, the design of the IVC filter was modified in 2005 due to reports that its six arms and legs broke off in some patients.  The IVC filter was sold between April 2003 and October 2005, although they were available for implantation after.  In the same study as above, a whopping 25% of the IVC filters were known to fracture and send those fragments through patients veins. 
In 2007, another study was conducted on Bard Recovery IVC Filters on 14 patients who had received one.  None of these patients showed arm or leg perforations in the device within 30 days.  However, after 899 days all patients experienced IVC filter arm perforations.  Four patients experienced a fracture in the device with migration of the fractured pieces.  All of the patients elected to have the device removed.
The Bard G2 IVC Filter
In response to allegations that the Bard Recovery IVC Filter was failing at an alarming rate, the company modified the design and released the Bard G2 IVC Filter.  The device was touted as having increased migration resistance, improved centering, and enhanced fracture resistance.  Between 2005 and 2010, an estimated 65,000 patients had this type of Bard IVC filter implanted.
However, the same study conducted by the York Hospital found that 12% of patients with a Bard G2 IVC Filter still experienced a fracture of the device.  A third of these cases experienced blocked blood flow in the vein in the liver or in the lungs.  And since the average time of study for the Bard Recovery Filter was done 50 months after implantation, while the average time of study for the Bard G2 was 24 months after implantation, more complications were predicted to arise.  The researchers suspected that the nitinol metal that was used in the making of the IVC filters might be the reason for the fractures.