The FDA 510(k) System Overhaul -Process For Medical Device Approval: Is this a win for Big Pharma?

 

IS BIG PHARMA LOBBYING DICTATING FEDERAL REGULATORY POLICY IN WASHINGTON D.C. NOW?

By Mark A. York (December 5, 2018)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Official FDA announcement: FDA changes 510(k) program for approval and review of medical devices Nov. 26, 2018

(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) On November 26, 2018 the FDA announced an overhaul of the 510(k) system that is meant to prompt manufacturers to base new products on technologies that are 10 years old or less. Almost 20% of the products currently cleared by the system were based on devices older than 10 years. For consumer safety, the FDA is considering whether to publicize the manufacturers and their devices that are based on older products.

The FDA is supposed to protect the interests of the general public and ensure that new devices, as well as existing ones are functioning as designed. More often that is not the case, as the FDA either fails to review medical device failures or simply ignores them.

The FDA has a reporting and tracking database that permits the public to review and see what devices are unsafe or causing adverse events, see FDA Medical Device Adverse Event Report Database.

Now there seems to be an effort by the FDA to pull back on the reporting functions in their official oversight duties. This includes the reporting requirements for problematic medical devices.

But earlier this year, the FDA made a rule change that could curtail that database, which was already considered to be of limited scope by medical researchers and the FDA itself.

For the FDA Medical Device Reporting Program (MDR): FDA.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ReportaProblem

BIG PHARMA LOBBYING INFLUENCE

Pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers, collectively Big Pharma, spend far more than any other industry to influence politicians. Big Pharma has poured close to $2.5 billion into lobbying and funding members of Congress over the past decade.

Hundreds of millions of dollars flow to lobbyists and politicians on Capitol Hill each year to shape laws and policies that keep drug company profits growing. The pharmaceutical industry, which has about two lobbyists for every member of Congress, spent $152 million on influencing legislation in 2016, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Drug companies also contributed more than $20m directly to political campaigns last year. About 60% went to Republicans. Paul Ryan, the former speaker of the House of Representatives was the single largest beneficiary, with donations from the industry totaling $228,670.

Over the past decade, manufacturers have also paid out at least $1.6 billion to settle charges of regulatory violations, including corruption and fraud, around the world, according to the consortium, which published its report findings on November 26, 2018.

The new FDA rule, which had been sought by medical device manufacturers, opens the door for a decrease in reported information for nearly 9 out of 10 device categories, a recent review found. It could allow manufacturers to submit quarterly summarized reports for similar incidents, rather than individual reports every time malfunctions occur, meaning there will be much less detail about individual cases.

As part of the worldwide scrutiny of medical devices and at times, the  affiliated dangers, a massive investigation known as “The Implant Files” was undertaken by a group of journalists around the world.  Led by editors and reporters from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, it took a year to plan and another year to complete

ICIJ partnered with more than 250 journalists in 36 countries to examine how devices are tested, approved, marketed and monitored. This included an analysis of more than 8 million device-related health records, including death and injury reports and recalls.

The Implant Files review encompassed more than 1.7 million injuries and nearly 83,000 deaths suspected of being linked to medical devices over 10 years, and reported to the U.S. alone.

Like the rest of Big Pharma, the medical device manufacturers have created an intricate web of corporate and political influence including at the Federal Drug Administration, where the FDA is charged with oversight of medical devices.

The new rule is one of several regulatory changes favoring the medical device industry that have been proposed and enacted since the beginning of the Trump administration. They are part of a decades-long campaign to decrease U.S. regulation of the pharmaceutical and medical device industry, which is a massive global business that has existed for years with minimal international scrutiny.

A recent analysis of the 10 largest publicly traded medical device companies in the U.S. found that since the start of the Trump administration, the companies have spent more than $36.5 million on efforts to influence rules and legislation. Some of these companies manufacture a variety of medical products, including pharmaceuticals and lab equipment, but four of the 10 exclusively manufacture devices and lobbying disclosures for all 10 emphasize efforts to influence policy around devices.

BUYING A PRESENCE IN WASHINGTON

The medical device industry was worth $405 billion worldwide in 2017, according to an Accenture market analysis. Despite its size, the medical device industry has only a patchwork of international oversight, even though when things go wrong with a device, the consequences can be serious.

But the single largest medical device market in the world is the U.S., worth an estimated $156 billion in 2017, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. As the medical device market has boomed over the past several decades, the industry has built a sizable presence in Washington, D.C.

Many medical device companies have built sophisticated lobbying arms, often employing their own team of lobbyists in addition to hiring outside firms for specific issues. Several of the largest companies used between 15 and 50 lobbyists in 2017 alone, an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) found.

There are also two main trade groups for the industry to which device makers contribute membership fees to, both of which pack a hefty lobbying punch on their own. Since the start of 2017, the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), the older and larger group, has spent more than $6 million and the Medical Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA) has spent nearly $2.6 million. The groups’ policy goals echo those that individual companies list on their lobbying disclosures, among them: decreasing taxes on devices, increasing insurance coverage and reimbursement and the FDA’s approval process for bringing a device to market.

The medical device lobbying effort is vast, with lobbyists seeking to be heard on Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement codes, device purchasing policies at the Veterans Administration, even cybersecurity and trade issues. Companies regularly lobby Congress and target agencies and offices across the executive branches in D.C., from the FDA to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid and the National Security Council.

Altogether, the industry has spent more than $20 million per year for the past five years lobbying the federal government, according to an analysis of campaign finance and lobbying data from CRP.

With the change in administration in 2017, that spending increased to more than $26 million, $2.2 million more than its highest level in any of the previous four years. Based on disclosures from the first three quarters of the year, medical device lobbying in 2018 is on pace to exceed 2017 levels.

An industry spokesperson noted that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends more heavily on lobbying than the device industry. Big Pharma-pharmaceuticals, which was worth more than $453 billion in the U.S. in 2017, spent more than $171 million the same year, more than six times as much as the device industry, according to a Statista market analysis.

The lobbying resources of the device industry far outweigh those of consumer and patient advocates, which are often on the other side of regulatory debates on Capitol Hill.

Very few advocacy groups spend time lobbying on devices, said Dr. Diana Zuckerman, a former HHS official under Obama and president of the National Center for Health Research, a nonprofit advocacy organization based in Washington.

“When we’ve talked to congressional staff about this,” she said, “they say things like, ‘Well, we’re getting calls every day, all day long from various device companies or their lawyers,’ and the nonprofits are basically going to the Hill for visits a few hours a year.”

Zuckerman’s group is one of about a half dozen to lobby on devices over the past few years. Each of the largest spends no more than a few-hundred-thousand dollars annually to lobby on devices and all other consumer issues, according to their federal lobbying disclosures.

Trial lawyer groups, which the device industry spokesperson noted often sue device makers, also spent less than one third of what the device industry did in 2017, a CRP analysis found.

Three companies that spent the most on lobbying in the past five years were  ask about their lobbying efforts. Baxter International and Abbott Laboratories did not comment. Medtronic said, “Despite the company nearly doubling in size, our lobbying-related efforts over the last 10 years have remained relatively stable.”

Previously, Abbott, Medtronic and a half-dozen other international device makers told the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists that they conduct business with the highest ethical standards, adhere to all laws and have rigorous programs to prevent employee misconduct.

In a statement, Mark Leahey, president of MDMA, said, “As millions of Americans benefit daily from the more than 190,000 different medical devices available and in use in the United States, our members continue to work with patient groups and policy makers to advance policies that promote improved access for patients and providers. This dynamic innovation ecosystem remains committed to developing the cures and therapies of tomorrow, while reducing adverse events and learning from ongoing research and each patient’s experience.”

OBAMA – TRUMP COMPARISON

During its eight-year tenure, the Obama administration permitted some deregulation but also instituted the first FDA product ban since the 1980s.

Beginning in 2014, warning letters to industry began to drop steeply and approval of new devices to rise. By 2017, the number of FDA warning letters to device manufacturers about product safety had dropped to nearly 80 percent less than those issued in 2010, while approval numbers for new devices were more than three times as high as at the beginning of the decade. The FDA says the decrease in warning letters is due to a more interactive approach to working with violative companies, and the uptick in approvals is due to an increase in staffing and efficiency.

Under Obama, some FDA regulators responsible for overseeing the device industry pushed for deregulation. Administrators largely kept it in check, said Peter Lurie, an FDA associate commissioner during the Obama administration.

“It was accompanied by very heavy lobbying on Capitol Hill as well,” said Lurie. Priorities included faster device approval times and decreasing taxes.

During Obama’s final year in office, the FDA banned its first device in more than 30 years, a type of surgical glove and proposed a ban on a home shock collar for behavior modification. That ban is still pending.

The industry successfully pushed for changes in a proposed regulation on unique device identifiers, the identification codes for individual devices, similar to automotive vehicle identification numbers, and won the suspension of a tax on medical devices created to help fund the Affordable Care Act.

“Now with the advent of the Trump administration,” said Lurie, “the deregulatory gloves are off and we’re seeing a number of the device industry’s most desired objectives come to fruition.”

President Trump vowed to cut regulations across the government by 75 percent when he came into office.

In 2002, Congress instituted a program in which the device industry pays “user fees” to fund the FDA office that oversees it, amounts which are agreed upon in negotiations between industry and the regulator every five years. In its first year, the fees provided 10 percent of funding for the device center, but by 2018, the fees brought in more than $153 million, providing more than 35 percent of the center’s budget.

“It’s carefully negotiated for weeks and months at a time,” said Jack Mitchell, former director of Special Investigations for the FDA. “And there’s a laundry list of things that the industry gets FDA to agree to and that they’re paying for.”

If the most recent agreement, negotiated in 2017, had not gone through by the deadline, the agency would have legally been required to temporarily layoff at least one third of its device center staff. The final agreement included a decrease in approval time for certain devices.

“We do not believe user fee funding has influenced our decision making,” the FDA said in a statement, noting that other parts of the FDA are also funded by user fees.

The agency also noted that it held meetings with patient stakeholders in addition to industry when negotiating the user fee agreement, saying, “Patients are a critical part of the user fee process.”

The FDA emphasized that it does not always agree with the industry, citing as examples its support of legislation that makers of reusable devices provide instruction on how to prevent bacterial contamination, and including device identifier codes in insurance claims forms.

MAKING FDA APPROVAL EASIER FOR BIG PHARMA

The changes to how adverse events are reported was seen as an overwhelming industry success.

The FDA database in which surgical complications are entered is known as the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database (MAUDE), which includes more than 750,000 incidents per year. The adverse events range from minor malfunctions to patient deaths linked to products being used around the world.

Despite its size, it’s widely accepted that the database is only a rather limited record of the full scale of medical device complications and adverse events.

The rule went into effect in August. The FDA said in a statement in November that though the reports are valuable, they were never meant to be sole source for determining if a device is causing harm.

“This type of reporting system has notable limitations,” said the FDA, “including the potential submission of incomplete, inaccurate, untimely, unverified, or biased data.”

Patients are able to report adverse events to the database themselves, but few know to do so. Companies are required to report the events, once they are notified., which they don’t always do. The FDA said thirty-three percent (33%)  of all FDA warning letters to device makers were to companies that failed to meet rules for reporting complications with devices.

The more companies that fail to file properly, the less the database accurately reflects what is happening to patients with devices.

Under the rule change, companies could be allowed to submit quarterly summarized reports for similar incidents, rather than individual reports each time malfunctions occur. Previously, qualified manufacturers could submit summarized reports if they filed a request with the agency. Now they can do so without making a request.

“[The database] is the way we’ve learned about some very serious health issues,” said Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of San Francisco who studies adverse events like Hershey’s. “It’s the most widespread and publicly available database for adverse events, which is extremely important for patient safety.”

In a public comment in support of the rule change, AdvaMed called the change a “commonsense approach” that will reduce the volume of reports manufacturers need to submit to the FDA and streamline the information the FDA receives about malfunctions.

“This process will actually make it easier for third parties to assess the malfunction data in [the database],” said Greg Crist, a spokesperson for AdvaMed. “Comparing the old alternative summary reporting program to this new initiative is comparing apples to oranges.”

In response to public comments that critical report information would be lost with the change in reporting, the FDA wrote in the published rule that, “We do not believe there will be an adverse impact on the content of information provided to FDA.”

In a statement, the agency said the new program “streamlines the process for reporting of device malfunctions and allows us to more efficiently detect potential safety issues and identify trends. It also frees up resources to better focus on addressing the highest risks.”

But Redberg, is worried that the new rule change will make searching an already unwieldy database more difficult, decreasing the ability of researchers and the public to search for misfiled reports or see accurate numbers of adverse events.

“It makes things easier for industry, it makes things worse for patients,” she said. “I really think it’s a public health crisis. We have more and more devices in use, and for many of them we really have no idea how safe they are because we don’t have accurate reporting.”

How these changes are affecting medical care in the US, and more importantly the publics right to be informed of adverse events and problems with medical devices, their approval process and who’s lobbying who and for what in the FDA should be open and transparent.  

(Certain images and text excerpts in this article were reprinted from third party media sources)

Read More

C. R. Bard, Inc., Hit With Multimillion Dollar IVC Filter Jury Verdict in Arizona Federal Court

Plaintiff Wins the First Bellwether Trial in Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation MDL 2641

By Mark A. York (March 30, 2018)

Bard G2 Inferior Vena Cava Filter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Mass Tort Nexus Media)  A Phoenix federal jury awarded $2 million in compensatory damages on Friday to plaintiff Sherr-Una Booker, in the first bellwether trial against IVC filter maker Bard, Inc. and affiliate company Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. finding that the clot-stopping vein filter known as a G2 model IVC filter, (an Inferior Vena Cava filter) manufactured by Bard broke apart in her body, and returned a verdict citing that the device maker was responsible for 80 percent of the harm. They also said that Bard is liable for punitive damages in addition to the $2 million in actual damages award, with the hearing on punitive damages taking place right after the initial verdict announcement.

The punitive damages phase of the first bellwether over the IVC device began immediately after the early Friday verdict in the Sherr-Una Booker v. C.R. Bard, Inc et al, Case No. 16-CV-0474-PHX-DCG litigation, US District Court of Arizona in front of Judge David G. Campbell.  The Booker trial is the first “bellwether trial” in the more than 3,500 other IVC filter lawsuits pending in the Bard IVC Filters Litigation MDL 2641, before Judge Campbell. The verdict came fairly quickly after just six-and-a-half hours of deliberations that started Thursday. The jury said Bard was not liable for strict liability, which will probably be appealed by Ms. Bookers counsel. We will update this article with the results of the punitive damage hearing as soon as they become available.

BARD IVC FILTER PROBLEMS

Bard’s IVC filters, including its Recovery, G2, Meridian, and Denali product lines, are the target of over 3,500 injury claims in the Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation MDL 2641 currently pending before the court in the District of Arizona. The thousands of lawsuits  filed against the two Bard companies claim they concealed dangerous side effects associated with their retrievable IVC filters – including filter migration, fracture, organ perforation, embolization, and inferior vena cava punctures – and failed to warn doctors and patients about these risks. In addition to the Bard MDL 2641 cases, there is other litigation against smaller IVC manufacturers, Cordis Corporation Rex Medical, Argon Medical, and B. Braun who are all facing  IVC lawsuits in state and federal courts across the country.

BARD FAILURE TO WARN

IVC filters are implanted into the inferior vena cava – the body’s largest blood vessel – to intercept blood clots before they can travel to the heart and lungs. The devices are indicated for patients at risk for pulmonary embolism, and who are unable to use standard blood-thinning medications. The filters involved in the C.R. Bard and Cook Medical litigations are retrievable, and are intended to be removed once a patient is no longer at risk for pulmonary embolism.

Plaintiffs pursuing IVC filter lawsuits against C.R. Bard and Cook Medical claim that the companies failed to provide doctors with adequate warnings and instructions for removal. They also claim that the devices are defectively designed, and accuse the two companies of concealing the risks associated with their blood clot filters.

The FDA has issued two safety alerts about using retrievable IVC filters.

  • The first was released in August 2010, after the devices were linked to hundreds of adverse events, including reports of filters fracturing and migrating to other areas of the body. In other cases, pieces of the filters perforated organs and blood vessels.
  • The FDA issued a second alert in May 2014 to remind doctors of the importance of IVC filter retrieval. A year earlier, a paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine found only 8.5% of retrievable IVC filters were successfully removed.

“In conclusion, our research suggests that the frequent use of IVC filters for VTE treatment and prophylaxis, combined with a low retrieval rate and inconsistent use of anticoagulant therapy, results in suboptimal outcomes, such as mechanical filter failure and high rates of VTE,” the authors of the report concluded. “More comprehensive longitudinal data would likely identify additional complications.”

Additional research has shown in the last 30 years an estimated 30,000 IVC filters have been implanted. But it wasn’t until 2010, after they’d received thousands of adverse event reports, that the FDA finally issued a warning citing the risk of retrievable filter injuries. It took another four years for the FDA to strengthen the warning when in 2014 they implored doctors to remove IVC filters within about one to two months after the risk of a pulmonary embolism has lessened.

BARD KNEW OF DANGERS

In 2015 after the FDA issued the second IVC warning, a bombshell media report claimed C.R. Bard continued to market and sell their inferior vena cava (IVC) filters even after the company became aware the filters were failing and causing serious injuries and even death. The report went on to link at least 27 deaths and more than 300 injuries to failures associated with C.R. Bards Recovery Model IVC filters. The investigative report also uncovered that IVC devices made by C.R. Bard and Cook Medical had been linked to hundreds of adverse event reports where they punctured the vena cava, tilted out of position or migrated or broke apart and caused metallic fragments to travel to the heart or lungs – a condition known as embolization. Even after C.R. Bard was warned about the problems, they continued to sell the devices, without warning the doctors of the defects and injuries.

With 3,500 additional cases remaining the the Bard IVC Filter litigation docket, it seems that the Bard entities may need to prepare for a long and protracted legal fight, unless they determine settlement discussions are the best legal strategy to prevent future plaintiff wins.

 

Read More

Caseload Growing in Philadelphia Against Rex and Argon in IVC Filter Litigation

Option Elite IVC Filter Litigation Rex Medical L.P., the designer of the Option and Option Elite IVC Filters as well as the distributor of these products, Argon Medical, face a growing number of lawsuits related to injuries that plaintiffs’ complaints allege were caused by these devices. (See a detailed list of complaints and attorneys below.)

We believe the majority, if not all, claims against Rex and Argon have been filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiffs claim that jurisdiction is proper in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas under Pennsylvania Law partially due to the Pennsylvania citizenship of Rex Medical.

Although attorneys practicing in the IVC Filter litigation are well aware of the Bard  IVC Filter Litigation and Cook IVC Filter Federal Multidistrict Litigation, far less has been published about the Rex and Argon Medical IVC Filter Litigation underway in Philadelphia.

Pennsylvania allows for consolidation of common claims brought by plaintiffs against the same defendant. Although these consolidations are not Federal MDLs, they function much in the same manner.

Claims may be brought by plaintiffs against defendants in these consolidated litigations without regard to the plaintiff’s citizenship, so long as the plaintiff’s citizenship is within the United States.

Numerous medical device and pharmaceutical consolidated litigations have been heard in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas including the Risperdal Product Liability Litigation as well as a consolidated Xarelto Product Liability Litigation which is currently on going, while a Federal MDL also exists related to the same basic issues.

Currently, Judge Arnold New has designated the cases against Rex/Argon to the “Complex Litigation” track. Although the cases have yet to be consolidated for adjudication in the MDL-like process, we expect this to occur as more cases are filed in the Pa. Court of Common Pleas.

Judge New oversees all consolidated litigation in the Court of Common Pleas.

 

Plaintiffs Cases Filed Against Rex Medical and Argon Medical

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas

Click on the Case Description to Access all documents including complaints for individual plaintiff cases:

Case Description

Date Filed

Case ID

Plaintiff Residence

Filter

Injury

DURBIN VS REX MEDICAL  17-Oct-16 161002290 California Option Efficacy

Injury

STOKAN VS REX MEDICAL  10-Oct-16 161001150 Arizona Option

Elite

Occlusion

Penetration

DUGAS VS REX MEDICAL 9-Sep-16 160900897 Texas Option Fracture

Migration

HARRIS VS REX MEDICAL 14-Jun-16 160601343 Georgia Option Injury

Other

MILLER VS REX MEDICAL 14-Jun-16 160601344 Louisiana Option Injury

Other

CASEMAN VS REX MEDICAL 7-Mar-16 160300207 Ohio Option Irretrievable

Injury

MONPLAISIR VS REX MEDICAL  3-Oct-16 161000070 Florida Option Injury

Death

AMOUR-WEST VS REX MEDICAL 13-Oct-16 161001566 Tennessee Option Injury

Other

STRODE VS REX MEDICAL  6-Sep-16 160900127 Tennesse Option Injury

Death

TURNER VS REX MEDICAL 5-Aug-16 160800773 Mississippi Option Fracture

Migration

THOMAS VS REX MEDICAL 8-Apr-16 160400816 Colorado Option

Elite

Irretrievable

Embedded

 Attorneys Filing Cases Against Rex Medical and Argon Medical

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas

 

EISENBERG, ROTHWEILER, WINKLER, EISENBERG & JECK, P.C.

 

Stewart J. Eisenberg
Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19103
stewart@erlegal.com
215.546.6636

Villari Brandes & Giannone P.C.
Peter M Villari
Nicole T. Matteo
8 Tower Bridge
Suite 400
161 Washington Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
(610) 832-8050
SEEGER WEISS LLP

Terri Anne Benedetto
1515 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1380
PHILADELPHIA PA 19102
tbenedetto@seegerweiss.com
(215)564-2300

NASTLAW LLC
1101 MARKET STREET
SUITE 2801
PHILADELPHIA PA 19107
(215)923-9300
 CURTIS LAW GROUP
William B. Curtis
12225 Greenville Ave
Suite 750 Dallas, TX 75243
bcurtis@curtis-lawgroup.com
214.890.1000
LAW OFFICES OF BEN C. MARTIN  
Ben C. Martin
3710 Rawlins Street, Suite 1230
Dallas, Texas 75219
bmartin@bencmartin.com
214.761.6614
FREESE AND GOSS, PLLC

 

Tim K. Goss
2905 Sackett St.
Houston, Texas 77098
tim@freeseandgoss.com
713.522.5250

MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATES
David P. Matthews
Lizy Santiago
3031 Allen Street, Suite 200
dmatthews@thematthewslawfirm.com
lsantiago@thematthewslawfirm.com
214.761.6610
Lopez McHugh, LLP

 

James J. McHugh, Jr
Carrie R. Capouellez
214 Flynn Avenue Moorestown
NJ 08057
ccapouellez@lopezmchugh.com
(856) 273-8500

Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP

 

Thomas P. Cartmell
David C. DeGreeff
4740 Grand Ave.
Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
(816) 701-1100

Read More

FDA Warns Public about Dangerous IVC Filter Side Effects

Bard Denali IVC Filter 2013
Bard Denali IVC Filter 2013

In a public safety communication, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says it has received approximately 920 adverse event reports related to the use of IVC filters, It issued a public report to inform medical professionals and patients about the potential risks associated with using the small, cage-like device. Adverse events reported by the FDA include:

  • Filter fracturing of the device
  • Migration of the pieces
  • Embolization of fractured device or device components
  • Tearing of the inferior vena cava vein.

Cordis IVC Filter Litigation is consolidated in California State Court. Bard IVC Filter Litigation is consolidated in MDL 2641. Cook Medical IVC Filter Litigation is consolidated in MDL 2570.

There is no MDL for Boston Scientific Corp IVC Filter Litigation. “We believe it is possible that more cases will be filed and a motion for consolidation and transfer may be formed in an effort to form an MDL,” said Mass Tort Consultant John Ray.

According to one of the many product liability cases filed against IVC Filter manufacturers:

“Defendants knew or should have known that its Cook Filter when used as expected and intended, had the possibility of shifting, breaking free its implantation site, migrating, perforating the vena cava, and causing serious injury and/or death to patients.”

The case is Olenda Homes et al. v. Cook Medical Inc. et al. (Case No. 5:16-cv-00066).

Patients who cannot use traditional blood-thinning drugs are usually the typical users of IVC filters. The devices are surgically implanted into a patient’s inferior vena cava vein and are designed to catch blood clots from the legs before they migrate to the heart and lungs, which could cause a pulmonary embolism if it reached these important organs. The filters are meant to only be used temporarily, according to the FDA, and hold the clot until it naturally disappears and until the threat of blood clots is no longer an issue.

IVC filters have come under more intense scrutiny and have been the subject of many lawsuits due to allegations that they have fractured with pieces subsequently migrating away from the original insertion point to other parts of the body. The pieces can tear veins and organs, and embed in other “high risk” areas of the body where they cannot be surgically removed, thus causing significant and long-term risks for the patient.

In its report, the FDA identifies a number of potential symptoms of migrating pieces that patients should be on guard for that include out of the ordinary heart rhythms, dizziness, fainting, heart palpitations, and chest pain.

 

Read More