THE FRIGHTENING LINK BETWEEN IVC FILTERS, XARELTO AND PRADAXA
As an attorney who has practiced law for over forty years, I have seen my fair share of cases involving defective devices and dangerous medications; however, over the last years I have had the opportunity to learn a great deal about one device in particular called the Inferior Vena Cava filter (IVC filter) that has harmed or will harm countless people. IVC Filters have been on the market for years as a means to prevent blood clots. Recently, this device’s extremely high failure rate has brought the negative effects of this device to light.
When I first learned about problems associated with IVC filters, I researched all the available studies I could find about health complications connected with the implant. Then when I began receiving calls from people who had filters implanted but who did not know at the time about the risks linked to the filters, I realized readily available information regarding these devices was severely lacking. I knew at that time that I needed to help get the word out about the dangers of this product and began visiting with potential clients, enabling me to discuss in person about what they needed to look for in order to prevent catastrophic injuries or death as a result of having this implant.
In going into my clients’ neighborhoods and homes, I have met many people who either did not know what to look for with respect to IVC filters or who already experienced complications. Either way, they all had one thing in common — they did not know that the filters could hurt them until it was so far along that most could not have them removed and most now faced a lifetime of fear over what could happen with the filter.
Adding insult to injury, as I began visiting with my clients, I realized something else – many people who had IVC filters put in place to prevent clots were put on anticoagulant medications like Xarelto and Pradaxa to prevent clotting. Why were they put on anticoagulants when they had the filter is an interesting question, though I have seen that many people with IVC filters still got clots despite its purpose of preventing them.
Regardless of why, what I found is now people with IVC filters often face added complications associated with taking these other anticoagulant medications. Xarelto and Pradaxa have been found to cause bleeding events. A bleeding event occurs when the medication loosens the blood so much in order to stop clots such that it causes the opposite effect leading to severe internal bleeding resulting in injury or death.
If you or a loved one know of anyone that had an IVC filter implanted and/or have taken Xarelto or Pradaxa and have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call me any time to discuss what rights you have as a result. I can help you determine if you may be entitled to compensation from either the manufacturers of the filters or of these medications.
I can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org or 800-266-DRUG.Read More
August 9, 2010—The FDA warned that IVC filters could fracture and migrate to other parts of the body. The FDA announced that it had received 921 adverse event reports since 2005 involving IVC filters, including devices manufactured by C.R. Bard. Problems included device migration, detachment of device parts, filter fracture and perforation of the inferior vena cava.
The FDA warning coincided with a report released in the Archives of Internal Medicine linking IVC filters manufactured by C.R. Bard with these defects. The study evaluated eighty patients who received two different types of C.R. Bard IVC filters at York Hospital. Twenty-eight patients received an older model that was available from April 2003 through October 2005. Among that group, seven experienced a filter fracture, reflecting a 25% fracture rate. Of the 52 patients who received the Bard G2 model, six patients experienced a fracture, representing a 12% rate of fracture.
At first blush the fracture rates in the Bard G2 IVC filter, seem to demonstrate an improvement over the older model, however the average time of implantation and fracture was about 50 months for patients with the older device compared to about 24 months for patients with the Bard G2 filter.
May 6, 2014 – Update on the original communication.
Brian Eberstein recently had the distinct honor of meeting former President Bill Clinton when he was in Dallas speaking to students at Paul Quinn College.Read More
NBC News investigates the safety of a medical device designed to stop blood clots. One former company insider says she raised questions about the device, but her complaints were dismissed.
Blood clot filters have been almost routinely ordered for so many people when they might not have been medically necessary. Even if they were needed when originally ordered, they likely have long outlived their usefulness. The result is that there are many people with these devices still in their bodies who may have not needed them in the first place and / or should have had them removed long ago. The medical experts now are saying that a filter should be removed within 60 days of being inserted. We know many of the blood clot filters or “heart filters” or “greenfield filters” are causing problems including serious injuries and even deaths.
How does the Blood Clot Filter cause Injuries?
These filters are often breaking and the small pieces of the filter are migrating throughout the body causing damage to the vein in which it was first placed, damage to the heart or lungs or other internal organs. Yes, you are right. These filters may be very dangerous to anyone who still has one in their body. I am working on many of these cases and would be happy to talk with you personally about your own individual circumstance. You are also welcome and encouraged to the look at the medical articles linked to my website which discuss these blood clot filters and the dangers associated with them.Read More