The manufacturer was notified of the following additional information via the editorial of the following publication: dislocation of a sutureless prosthesis after type i bicuspid aortic valve replacement chiariello g.A., villa e., messina a., troise g., j.Thorac.Cardiovasc.Surg.2018 156:2 (e87-e89).The editorial comment was written by michael carrier (replacement of bicuspid aortic valve with sutureless bioprosthesis: a word of caution here, j thorac cardiovasc surg 2018;156:e91): the editorial comment suggested the patient's bicuspid annulus as a possible contributing root cause of the event.It was reported that the prosthesis "the perceval sutureless bioprosthesis was originally designed for a normal annulus, albeit decalcified in part, with appropriate sinotubular junction and normal sinuses of valsalva.Positioning of the 3 nadir guiding sutures at 120 degrees in asymmetric cusps and redirecting radial pressure of the sutureless prosthesis on the annulus may be difficult in some cases." the author further reported that the "take-home message is that replacement of bicuspid and aortic valve with asymmetric annulus should be performed with standard sutured prostheses.Currently, sutureless and rapid-deployment prosthesis must be reserved for patients with circular annulus and symmetric sinuses." the additional information received suggests that the patient's bicuspid annulus may have contributed to the event.The manufacturer acknowledges that this may have been a contributing factor to the reported event.The additional information does not alter the state of the investigation, or warrant further investigation, as the serial number remains unknown and the device was not received for analysis.Based on the additional information received, the patient's bicuspid annulus may have been a contributing factor in this event.As indicated in the perceval instructions for use, avr with perceval is contra-indicated in patients with bicuspid congenital aortic valve.The ifu therefore clearly addresses this risk.Nevertheless, given that over-sizing of the device was confirmed, and based on the physicians judgement at the time of the event, the root cause of the event remains attributable to over-sizing.
|