“Simon Nitinol IVC Filters” Included In BARD IVC FILTER MDL 2641 Claims
By Mark A. York (January 29, 2019)
(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) Recent pleadings in the Bard IVC Filter MDL 2641 reflect Bard’s Simon Nitinol IVC Filters now being included in the types of IVC filters permitted in claims. The Simon IVC filters being allowed in the litigation is based on motions by Bard that were deemed moot and had also included a Bard request for a separate MDL for Simon Nitinol Filters, which was denied. See Bard IVC MDL 2641 Joint Report Re Bard Simon Nitinol Filters part of MDL (Jan 28, 2019) also referenced in the January 2, 2019 JPML order JPML Order Re: Simon Nitinol IVC Filters Included in MDL 2641.
Bard-Davol is attempting to consolidate MDL 2641 IVC Filter litigation cases now that settlement discussions seem to be starting in earnest and having all their filters in this MDL makes good business sense.
Bard’s history includes being known as the company that manufactured IVC filters associated with at least 27 deaths and hundreds of related problems when they replaced the initial IVC device with a modified version, that it knew had similar and potentially fatal flaws soon after it was put on the market.
Company records have shown that New Jersey based C.R. Bard was concerned about reports of failures for its G2 series filters, designed to replace the company’s Recovery filter, within four months of being cleared to sell the G2 by the Food and Drug Administration.
Bard is currently involved in MDL 2641 Bard IVC Filter Litigation in US District Court -Phoenix, Arizona. For further information, see Mass Tort Nexus Briefcase BARD-IVC-Filters-MDL-2641-Product-Liability-Litigation Briefcase.
Bard IVC filter models include:
Simon Nitinol IVC Filter
Recovery Filter System
G2 Vena Cava Filter
G2 Express Vena Cava Filter
Eclipse Vena Cava Filter
Meridian Vena Cava Filter
Denali Vena Cava Filter
But instead of recalling the G2 filter, and the virtually identical G2 Express, the medical device manufacturer decided to keep them on the market for five years until 2010, selling more than 160,000 of them.
At least 12 deaths and hundreds of problems are now linked to the G2 series filters, according to Bard and FDA records.
“All of the data that we’ve seen in our own studies, as well as other clinician researchers’, is that this device consistently fractures, consistently causes major complications,” said Dr. William Kuo, a interventional radiologist who runs Stanford Health Care’s IVC Filter Clinic, which specializes in removing failed blood clot filters. “The number of complications, the frequency of severe failures makes it obvious that it was never safe to be implanted.”
The spider-shaped Bard filters, implanted in the largest vein in the body (the inferior vena cava) were designed to stop blood clots from moving to the heart and lungs, where they could be fatal.
Blood clot filters are implanted in an estimated 250,000 people in the U.S. each year, most without incident. In the last decade, millions of filters have been implanted in Americans. Bard is one of 11 manufacturers that make these devices.
Bard had hoped to gain a new foothold in the lucrative filter market when it introduced the Recovery filter. But after it received FDA clearance to market the device in 2002, reports of deaths and injuries associated with it moving and breaking steadily climbed.
A confidential study commissioned by Bard showed that the Recovery filter had higher rates of relative risk for death, filter fracture and movement than all of its competitors. An outside doctor hired to conduct the study wrote that “further investigation…is urgently warranted.”
But Bard decided not to recall the Recovery from the market. In 2005, after the device had been sold for three years, the company replaced it with the similar G2 series of filters. Internal Bard records and hundreds of reports to the FDA show that the G2 series did not solve the filter’s problems.
A confidential memo written in December 2005 by a Bard vice president soon after the G2 was cleared by the FDA shows his concern about “problems with…migration,” “tilting” and “perforation.” He also noted that Bard had another filter on the market that had virtually no complaints. “Why shouldn’t doctors be using that one rather than the G2?” he asked.
Another document written later that includes data through 2010 showed the G2 series filters had more fractures, migrations and reported problems than any of its competitors.
Clinical Research Shows IVC Filter Dangers Were Known
“Caval Penetration by Inferior Vena Cava Filters”
Limited penetration into the caval wall is an important securing mechanism for inferior vena cava (IVC) filters; however, caval penetration can also cause unintentional complications. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence, severity, clinical consequences, and management of filter penetration across a range of commercially available IVC filters.
Methods and Results—
The MEDLINE database was searched for all studies (1970–2014) related to IVC filters. A total of 88 clinical studies and 112 case reports qualified for analysis; these studies included 9002 patients and 15 types of IVC filters. Overall, penetration was reported in 19% of patients (1699 of 9002), and 19% of those penetrations (322 of 1699) showed evidence of organ/structure involvement. Among patients with penetration, 8% were symptomatic, 45% were asymptomatic, and 47% had unknown symptomatology. The most frequently reported symptom was pain (77%, 108 of 140). Major complications were reported in 83 patients (5%). These complications required interventions including surgical removal of the IVC filter (n=63), endovascular stent placement or embolization (n=11), endovascular retrieval of the permanent filter (n=4), and percutaneous nephrostomy or ureteral stent placement (n=3). Complications led to death in 2 patients. A total of 87% of patients (127 of 146) underwent premature filter retrieval or interventions for underlying symptoms or penetration-related complications.
Caval penetration is a frequent but clinically underrecognized complication of IVC filter placement. Symptomatic patients accounted for nearly 1/10th of all penetrations; most of these cases had organ/structure involvement. Interventions with endovascular retrieval and surgery were required in most of these symptomatic patients.
The inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is a device that is implanted in the IVC to prevent lower-extremity deep venous thrombosis from causing life-threatening pulmonary embolism. The IVC filter achieves this by catching the embolizing thrombus between metal struts. Therefore, it is critical that the IVC filter maintains its position once implanted to fulfill this filtration function. Limited penetration of the filter into the caval wall is needed to secure the filter to the caval wall, so penetration is considered pathological only when the limb protrudes >3 mm beyond the caval wall.1 Over the last decade, as more patients with optional filters have returned for filter retrieval, penetration has been increasingly recognized as a frequent finding, particularly with conically shaped filters.2 Although most cases of penetration are asymptomatic and regarded as incidental findings on imaging studies, penetrations may be clinically significant when they involve the adjacent organs or structures. In such cases, filter penetration may require intervention.3
The purposes of this study were to conduct a literature review on the frequency and severity of caval penetration for commercially available IVC filters and to discuss the potential mechanisms, risk factors, treatment, and prevention strategies for filter penetration.
Institutional Review Board approval was not required for this literature review. The MEDLINE database was searched (search parameters: PubMed from 1970–2014, English language) for terms describing IVC filters (key words: inferior vena cava, filter, and perforation or penetration). Prospective clinical trials, retrospective studies, case reports, and series with IVC filter placement and subsequent radiographic imaging or surgical follow-up were included in this review for analysis. We excluded studies of IVC filter placements without either imaging or surgical follow-up, review articles, animal studies, laboratory investigations, duplicated case reports or clinical studies, and other unrelated articles such as editorials, guidelines, response letters, commentaries, or special communications.
Articles that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed. A standardized data extraction database was created by tabulating the following information: first author; year of publication; title; journal; study design (prospective, retrospective, or case report); number and model of IVC filters; number of patients with imaging or surgical follow-up; cases of penetration; imaging findings; clinical symptoms; interventions; and clinical outcomes. Two investigators conducted the literature search independently to verify data accuracy and completeness, with a third reviewer resolving any uncertainties. The formal definition of penetration provided by Society of Interventional Radiology guidelines (the extension of a limb >3 mm beyond the cava wall) was used in this study.1 Major complications of IVC penetration were defined as admission to a hospital for therapy (for outpatient procedures), an unplanned increase in the level of care, prolonged hospitalization, permanent adverse sequelae, or death after filter placement.1 The quality of clinical studies and case reports was assessed with the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), with study and report quality categorized as high, moderate, low, or very low.4
The initial search for “IVC” and “filter” yielded 1511 English reports from January 1, 1970, to December 31, 2014. Of the 1511 reports, a total of 1311 studies were excluded, which included 146 review articles, 1158 studies unrelated to penetration, 1 duplicated clinical study, and 6 duplicated case reports (Figure 1). Ultimately, a total of 88 studies (14 prospective clinical trials and 74 retrospective studies) and 112 case reports were included in this study. The quality of evidence was as follows: high, n=9; moderate, n=44; low, n=34; and very low, n=113. The total number of filter placements qualified for analysis was 9002 (8833 from clinical studies and 169 from case reports; Figure 1). Fifteen types of filters exhibited caval penetration (Table 1); the basic shape of each involved filter is illustrated in Figure 2. Penetration segregated by filter type according to longitudinal studies is shown in Table 2. The incidence of caval penetration was 21% (973 of 4694) for conical filters and 4% (34 of 799) for nonconical filters (P<0.01). The incidence of caval penetration in prospective trials was 9.8% (105 of 1076) and for retrospective studies was 20% (902 of 4417). [end]
WHAT DID BARD KNOW AND WHEN?
Bard kept the G2 series filters on the market until 2010, the same year that Chris Svedise had a Bard G2 Express implanted in him because he was prone to blood clots. Svedise, 69, a manager at a wholesale fish company in San Francisco, asked his doctor last October to check on the filter. He was alarmed to learn it had moved.
“He said, ‘It is dangerously close to your heart,’” Svedise said.
After two surgeons declined to remove the filter because of its precarious position, Svedise turned to Dr. William Kuo, whose team has developed an advanced technique to remove failed filters and filter pieces.
Dr. William Kuo of Stanford Health Care’s IVC Filter Clinic.
During emergency surgery, Kuo discovered three legs had already broken off of Svedise’s filter and traveled to his lungs. Kuo also said that two partially broken legs completely broke away during the operation. One, he said, could have killed Svedise.
“It floated off right in front of our eyes,” Kuo said. “First into the right atrium and then into the right ventricle. He’s very lucky.”
Kuo estimates that in the last 10 years he has removed 1,000 failed filters. Many of the cases were referred to him by other surgeons who deemed the procedure too complex and dangerous. Kuo said he has removed more Bard filters than any other single type.
The Recovery and G2 series filters should have been pulled from the market, “Whether it’s an ethical reason, a moral obligation, in the interest of public safety and patient safety, absolutely these devices should have been recalled,” he added.
Kuo said that along with device companies, the FDA also needs to take stronger action to protect patients.
“What we’ve learned the hard way is that we can no longer rely on medical device companies to do what’s in the best interest of the patient. And we can no longer rely on the FDA to properly regulate these devices,” he said.
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to the FDA inquiring about the agency’s oversight of the filter. One of his questions was about the actions the agency takes when new information about the performance of an already cleared medical device becomes known.
“FDA’s only got one responsibility. It’s not the company, it’s John Q. Public — to protect the American public from two standpoints: safety and effectiveness,” Grassley said.
Grassley then issued a statement that the FDA’s response was incomplete and he has more questions as he decides what steps to take next.
Asked about Grassley’s concerns and why Bard’s Recovery and G2 filters were not recalled, the FDA declined to answer. The agency said in a statement that it has “investigated the risks of all of these devices,” not just Bard’s, and “issued safety communications” about “risks associated with IVC filters.”
The Society of Interventional Radiologists, Society for Vascular Surgery, and blood clot filter manufacturers, including Bard, have started a large clinical trial called PRESERVE to examine how safe and effective filters now on the market are. The study, which the FDA helped organize, is expected to enroll 2,100 patients over the course of five years, the most ambitious filter study ever in the U.S.
In the meantime, Kuo worries about the steady stream of patients coming into his clinic whose filters have failed and risk injury or death. ”It’s upsetting to see the patients who have actually suffered from a system that appears to be broken,” he said.
As of January 2, 2019 when the JPML issued the Simon Nitinol related order, there were 85 Simon IVC filter related cases directly filed in to MDL 2641, and how many more of these claims will be filed is unknown, as many Simon Nitinol cases have been historically declined by firms due to not being part of Bard MDL 2641.
To access the most relevant and real time information on Mass Torts sign up for:
Mass Tort Nexus “CLE Immersion Course”
March 8-11, 2019 at The Riverside Hotel in Fort Lauderdale , FL
For class attendance information please contact Jenny Levine at 954.520.4494 or Jenny@masstortnexus.com.
- For the most up-to-date information on all MDL dockets and related mass torts visit www.masstortnexus.com and review our mass tort briefcases and professional site MDL briefcases.
- To obtain our free newsletters that contains real time mass tort updates, visit www.masstortnexus.com/news and sign up for free access.