Model Number 505DM28 |
Device Problems
Incomplete Coaptation (2507); Mechanical Jam (2983)
|
Patient Problem
No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient (2692)
|
Event Date 02/26/2014 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Upon receipt at medtronic¿s quality laboratory, the valve was visually inspected with no anomalies noted.The serial number was verified to be correct.The valve leaflets were fully mobile.The valve was inspected and functionally tested per manufacturing procedure and met specifications.The carbon components and stiffening ring were dimensionally inspected and met engineering specifications.The tissue annulus diameter of the valve was measured and confirmed to be within specification.The roundness of the stiffening ring was measured and assessed, and found to be within the engineering specifications.The device history record was reviewed and showed that this product met all manufacturing specifications for product released for distribution.No issues were identified that would have impacted this event.Based on the available information and returned product analysis, it is likely that the clinical observation was due to a patient anatomy issue that was not detected until after device implant.
|
|
Event Description
|
Medtronic received information that this mechanical heart valve was implanted anatomically in a supra-annular position with no issues and proper leaflet motion.However, after closing the left atrium, the transesophageal echocardiogram (tee) showed that one leaflet was stuck in the closed position.The left atrium was reopened and the valve was rotated 90 degrees.The leaflets again showed proper movement until the left atrium was closed.Tee again showed one leaflet was stuck in the closed position.The valve was then removed and successfully replaced with a non-medtronic 29mm valve in a supra-annular position.The physician noted that this was a reoperation and that removal of remnant tissue seemed more difficult than usual.Although there was no tissue found in the orifice, there was a concern that an invasion of tissue in the orifice might occur because this valve was sutured more closely to the left atrium than the first implant.The physician speculated that there may have been an undetected interference by tissue in the orifice area during left ventricle systole due to insufficient pressure to open a leaflet with pushing the remnant backward during left atrium systole, therefore possibly causing the leaflet to be stuck in the closed position.No subsequent adverse patient effects were reported beyond the reoperation/replacement.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
The product has been returned and analysis is in progress.Upon completion of analysis, a supplemental report will be submitted.(b)(4).
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
If information is provided in the future, a supplemental report will be issued.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|