Cordis OPTEASE Vena Cava Filter Is indicated for use in the prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE) via percutaneous placement in the vena cava in the following situations: - Pulmonary thromboembolism when anticoagulants are contraindicated, - Failure of anticoagulant therapy for thromboembolitic disease, - Emergency treatment following massive pulmonary embolism where anticipate benefits of conventional therapy are reduce, and - Chronic, recurrent pulmonary embolism where anticoagula

Recall Insight

This FDA Devices action (record #Z-0081-2014) was formally reported on November 6, 2013, with the manufacturer initiating the action on September 27, 2013. It is classified under Moderate severity (Class II), with a current status of Terminated. Cordis Corporation is listed as the recalling firm, operating out of Miami Lakes, FL. Federal records indicate 29,395 units units are affected.

The documented reason for this recall is: Cordis identified a printing error on one unit of the Optease Vena Cava Filter, in which the orientation arrow for the femoral approach was printed in the incorrect direction. The error resulted in the filter being imp… Distribution data in the federal record shows the product reached: Worldwide Distribution - US (nationwide) including Hawaii and Puerto Rico and states of: AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY…. Distribution scope directly affects the consumer exposure window and determines whether a recall remains regional or escalates into a nationwide advisory.

To put this record in context, PlainRecalls indexes 83,949 recalls across the FDA, CPSC, NHTSA and USDA FSIS going back to 1995. Within the same product category, the database holds 6 closely related recalls, of which 6 were also issued by FDA Devices. That clustering is a signal — repeated actions in a narrow category often indicate a systemic quality-control issue, a supplier-wide contamination, or a design defect that has propagated across product lines. This recall is roughly 13 years old; older recalls can remain relevant because many units enter resale, rental, and secondary-market channels where the original warning never reaches the end user. Always cross-check the recall number against the official agency page before relying on any summary.