User facility medwatch report received that states, "hemostatic valve failure on steerable guied, i.E., leaking, and a new device was opened and used.Procedural note: " the right groin region was anesthetized with 20 ml of xylocaine.The common femoral vein was accessed and two proglide devices were deployed.The patient was fully anticoagulated.We took an slo transeseptal sheath and a bk needle and a transseptal puncture was performed about 4 cm from the mitral annulus.We then positioned the amplatz wire in the left upper pulmonary vein.We used dilators and then advanced a 24-french guide sheath.Upon removing the wire and the dilator, the____ was lost within the guide sheath.We tried to reposition the guide sheath within the left atrium in case we were against the wall, but it kept losing the _____.This was suggested that there is something faulty with the device, although it appeared to be okay pre-introduction into the body.We therefore advanced a safari small curve into the left athrium, removed the guide sheath, and introduced a new guide sheath.We then proceeded to position a mitraclip ntr grasping the anterior and posterior mitral leaflets just lateral to a2 p2.Our mean gradient average was 3 mmhg.The worst degree of mitral regurgitation was 1+.This was a medial jet that we were not going to pursue due to the baseline mean gradient of 3 mmhg.There was good tissue bridge.The device was released.No changes were noted after the device was released.The guide sheath was removed and two proglide devices were deployed with good hemostatis.The patient was sent to recovery room in stable condition." what was the original intended procedure?: transseptal puncture and placement of mitraclip ntr times 1." no additional information was provided.Additional customer follow-up information was received: this was a mitraclip procedure to treat mitral regurgitation (mr) with a grade of 3-4.The steerable guide catheter was advanced; however a leak on the hemostatic valve was observed.There were no adverse patient effects and no clinically significant delay in the procedure.No additional information was provided.
|
The device was not returned.A review of the lot history record identified no manufacturing nonconformities issued to the reported lot that would have contributed to the reported event.Additionally, a review of the complaint history identified no similar incidents reported from this lot.All available information was investigated and a definitive cause for the reported leak could not be determined.There is no indication of a product issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling.Na.
|