A supplemental mdr is being submitted for correction and additional information.The following sections of this report have been updated: corrected h.6 investigation conclusions and investigation findings.Added new information to h.6 type of investigation.The device was not returned to edwards lifesciences for evaluation.Without the device returned for evaluation, visual inspection, functional testing and dimensional analysis were unable to be completed.Imagery was not provided for review.A review of the risk management documentation was performed, and no evidence of product non-conformances or labeling/ifu inadequacies were identified in the evaluation.The complaint was unable to be confirmed as neither the complaint device nor applicable procedural imagery was provided for evaluation.Due to the unavailability of the device, engineering was unable to perform any visual, functional, or dimensional analysis; therefore, a manufacturing non-conformance was unable to be determined.Additionally, a review of the dhr and lot history did not provide any indication that a manufacturing non-conformance would have contributed to the complaint.A review of the ifu and training manuals revealed no deficiencies.As reported, ''after a successful valve deployment of a 23 mm sapien 3 ultra valve in the aortic position via transfemoral approach a small pinhole leak was identified in the delivery balloon in the distal portion of the balloon.It did not appear to affect the full deployment of the balloon or valve.The annulus and lv were present with ca++''.The presence of calcification can create a challenging anatomy for balloon inflation.While the balloons are sufficiently designed and tested to ensure the burst pressure is at or above the rated burst pressure, calcified nodules can compromise the structure of the balloon wall via following mechanisms such as puncture, local overstretching, open cell impingement, or stress concentration.It is possible that the balloon negatively interacted with the patient calcification when performing valve deployment or retrieving delivery system, resulting in the reported damaged.However, without applicable patient/procedural imagery, a definitive root cause is unable to be determined.Available information suggests that patient factors (calcification) may have contributed to the complaint event.Complaint histories for all reported events are reviewed against trending control limits monthly, and any excursions above the control limits are assessed and documented as part of this monthly review.No ifu/labeling/training manual inadequacies were identified.Therefore, no corrective or preventative action nor product risk assessment is required at this time.
|