In 2004, Bard introduced one of the first retrievable filters onto the market. The “Recovery” filter, as its name would imply, was Bard’s answer to the race to the market for a filter that could be left in the body for a lifetime, just like its other filter—the Simon-Nitinol (the SNF)—or if warranted could be retrieved at any time. Unlike the SNF the Recovery filter could be retrieved in minutes if the patient’s condition warranted it.

Rather than giving the doctor no choice for retrieval the Recovery filter options were abundant. Risk for a pulmonary emobolus over? Take it out. Patient wanting something temporary? Retrieve it. The marketing avenues were numerous. Put very plainly, the Recovery filter gave the doctor (and her patient) the choice—leave a permanent filter in the body with all its inherent risks or simply take it out.

Unfortunately marketing is not always reality. The Recovery filter had an abysmal failure rate. Those expecting a short-term success in prevention of pulmonary embolus were presented with failure of a kind they never expected—fractured filters sending shards of metal to their heart, open heart surgery, lung and kidney surgery to remove broken filters, massive open procedures to take filters out of the body. Migration of the filter straight to the heart, Perforations of the legs of the filter into other organs. Pierced vessels including the aorta. The Recovery was indeed a disaster. Eventually pulled from the market voluntarily, Bard’s first retrieval filter was replaced with a disaster.


Bard G2 and the other Bard Filters

Bard’s generation two filter was no better that’s its predecessor. Touted as an improvement, the G2 was little more than a marketing ploy designed to grab a share of the exciting new retrievability market abandoned by the Recovery. Plagued with a filter that could not be counted on any more than the Recovery, Bard began its be countdown to filter failure after filter failure after filter failure—hoping to lure new customers to its new and “improved” but now defunct models such as the G2, the G2 Express, the G2 Eclipse, and the Meridian…all the way to its currently marketed “Denali.”

Unfortunately for patients, the replacements carried the same complications as the Recovery– fracture, migration, perforation, embolization, and thrombus. Like all IVC filters, there is little evidence that Bard IVC filters work at all. They have not undergone Level 1 FDA clinical trials to prove that they can actually prevent pulmonary embolus. The evidence that they work is weak. The evidence that they harm is undeniable.

The Bard Recovery was cleared by the FDA and hit the market in 2003. The filter was implanted in thousands of patients until in 2005 it was pulled from the market due to its poor safety record. A 2010 study found the device failed at a rate of 25%, with 7 out of 28 patients suffering from fragmentation and embolization. Many Bard Recovery IVC filter lawsuits have resulted from these issues, and more are being filed every month.


Bard G2 IVC Filters

The Bard G2 was touted as the “next generation” IVC filter following the failed Bard Recovery. However, a rash of lawsuits and claims against this product indicate that little had changed. A credible study from a Pennsylvania hospital found that fragmentation and embolization occurred in 12% of patients. Despite knowing the problems of the G2, Bard kept the filter on the market until 2010, selling more than 160,000 units over five years. Over that time, many dangerous complications and wrongful deaths have occurred.

Let’s talk about your Bard IVC filter case.

If you have an issue with Bard IVC filters, you’ve come to the right place. Martin Baughman is a national leader in Bard litigation. We understand the complexities of product liability cases and know how to take on big corporate legal teams and get the results our clients deserve. We represent injured clients around the country and have filed numerous Bard cases. We’re ready to help you. Contact us and we can discuss your situation and evaluate your legal options.