It was reported that a patient underwent placement of the trapease vena cava filter.The information provided indicated that the filter subsequently malfunctioned and caused injury and damages to the patient, including, but not limited to, but not limited to, pulmonary embolism (pe) post implant.The information also indicated that as a direct and proximate result of this malfunction, the patient suffered life-threatening injuries and damages, and required extensive medical care and treatment and as a further and proximate result, the patient, has suffered and will continue to suffer significant medical expenses, and pain and suffering, and other damages.There is currently no additional information available.The product was not returned for analysis and the sterile lot number has not been provided; therefore, no device analysis nor device history record review could be performed.The trapease vena cava filter is indicated for use in the prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism (pe) via percutaneous placement in the vena cava for patients in which anticoagulants are contraindicated, anticoagulant therapy for thromboembolic disease has failed, emergency treatment following massive pulmonary embolism where anticipated benefits of conventional therapy are reduced or for chronic, recurrent pulmonary embolism where anticoagulant therapy has failed, or is contraindicated.The purpose of a vena cava filter is to catch thrombus from the lower extremities as it travels along normal blood flow patterns up towards the heart.Recurrent pulmonary embolism is a known potential complication of filter implantation and is listed in the instructions for use (ifu) as such.There are possible patient and pharmacological factors that may have contributed to the reported event.With the limited information provided and no post implant imaging available for review the reported events could not be confirmed or further clarified, nor is it possible to establish a relationship between the reported events and the device.Given the limited information currently available for review, there is nothing to suggest that a malfunction in the design and manufacturing process of the device; therefore, no corrective action will be taken.
|
As reported by the legal brief, the patient underwent placement of a trapease vena cava filter.The filter subsequently malfunctioned and caused injury and damages to the patient, including, but not limited to, pulmonary embolism post implant.As a direct and proximate result of these malfunctions, the patient suffered life-threatening injuries and damages, and required extensive medical care and treatment.As a further proximate result, the patient has suffered and will continue to suffer significant medical expenses, and pain and suffering, and other damages.
|