Inferior vena cava filters are supposed to save lives. The spider-like devices catch blood clots before they can travel up to the lung and cause deadly pulmonary embolisms. But for over a decade, these devices have been dogged by questions about how well they work and the serious complications they can cause for patients.
The latest data make clear they’re still causing problems: Researchers examined a Food and Drug Administration database and found that adverse event reports related to the filters rose from 1,020 in 2016 to 2,842 in 2020 — which experts say is likely an undercount, and could signal either a greater awareness among patients or an uptick in complications.
IVC filters are favored among interventional radiologists and vascular surgeons as an alternative treatment for patients with known blood clots that could pose a health risk, but who can’t be on blood thinners; for example, those at risk of internal bleeding with clots in their legs.
This article is exclusive to STAT+ subscribers
Unlock this article — and get additional analysis of the technologies disrupting health care — by subscribing to STAT+.
Already have an account? Log in
Already have an account? Log in
About the Author Reprints
To submit a correction request, please visit our Contact Us page.
STAT encourages you to share your voice. We welcome your commentary, criticism, and expertise on our subscriber-only platform, STAT+ Connect