|
Device Problem
Migration or Expulsion of Device (1395)
|
Patient Problems
Ischemia (1942); Thrombus (2101); Blood Loss (2597)
|
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
On completion of the investigation, a follow up report will be submitted.
|
|
Event Description
|
Article received: falkensammer, j.E.(2020).Assessment of pull-out forces in tevar and anaconda fevar combination and early clinical results:.Annals of vascular surgery, 160-170.Purpose: to assess the stability of a fenestrated anaconda device implanted into a set of thoracic endografts from different manufacturers.Method: a study of 172 patients between april 2013 and december 2018.Conclusion: the combination of a thoracic tube graft and a fenestrated anaconda device is a viable option for the treatment of patients with extent i or iv taaas with no adequate landing zone above the celiac trunk.Per the article adverse events occurred including ischemia, dissection, thrombus, blood loss and migration.
|
|
Event Description
|
N/a.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Article reviewed: falkensammer, et al.(2020).Assessment of pull-out forces in tevar and anaconda fevar combination and early clinical results: creation of a proximal landing zone for fevar in patients with extent i and extent iv taaas.Annals of vasc surg; 66:160-170.The subject article is an in vitro study of pull-out forces measured after docking a fenestrated anaconda graft within the distal end of different tevar devices.Anaconda devices were implanted in 28- or 30-mm thoracic tube grafts (oversizing of at least 2 mm: 13.3-21.4; minimum overlap of 15 mm).Continuously increasing longitudinal pull forces of up to 100 n were applied on an instron tensile tester.Initial break point and damage to the endografts were documented.Clinical results of patients treated with such an fevar/tevar combination at our institution are presented as a second part of this study.This complaint is based on information found within a article/literature review.There was no product that was available for evaluation, therefore a device evaluation could not be conducted and the complaint cannot be confirmed.The author of the article did not report any major adverse patient effects as result of this event.A device history record (dhr) review was unable to be performed as the device product part number and lot number was not provided within the article.Attempts to obtain the device lot information was conducted but unsuccessful.The hazardous situation/harm is addressed in the risk file and is operating within its risk profile.There was no evidence within the article that the device was the cause of the reported event.The complaint history review did not identify an adverse trend, therefore no escalation to capa process is required.Conclusion: the instructions for use clearly states that potential adverse effects of advanta v12 balloon-expandable stent include, but may be not limited to: inadequate implantation or intimal trauma, restenosis of stented lesion, stent misplacement, migration or deformation, systemic embolization or thromboembolic episodes.Although considering the relatively low primary technical success rate (71.4%) and high early unplanned reintervention rate (28.6% at 30 days) one should remember the high complexity of this series of patients with thoracoabdominal aortic pathologies.Increased complexity and complication rates directly impact in vitro and in vivo results of the current study.Overall results support the feasibility of a tevar and anaconda fevar combination to treat patients with a paravisceral aneurysm with no suitable anatomy for a branched device.The getinge¿s advanta v12tm balloon expandable covered bridging stents performed as expected h3 other text : not available for return.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|