The initial malpositioning of the device can be attributed to user error, and may also be related to a failure to follow the instructions for use, given that the guiding sutures were held by a tourniquet which is not indicated in the ifu.The observed paravalvular leak can reasonably be attributed to bulky calcium in the patient annulus which was removed aver re-opening the aortotomy, given that the device was ultimately implanted successfully without any paravalvular leak.The perceval ifu explicitly states that bulky or protruding calcium must be removed prior to implant.Therefore, the failure to remove such calcium is considered a failure to follow the instructions for use.The subsequent dislodgement during the de-airing process can reasonably be attributed to the manipulation of the heart.It is explicitly stated in the instructions for use that care must be taken if manipulation of the heart is required, as this may lead to dislodgement of the valve.Based on the information provided, the device was ultimately implanted successfully.As such, no device issue is suspected.The reported event can reasonably be attribute to user error and a failure to follow the instructions for use, as discussed above.Not explanted.
|
An pvs23 was implanted during an isolated avr.The patient's annulus was decalcified and the valve was sized for a pvs23.The valve was collapsed and parachuted into place.The guiding sutures were held in place using tourniquets, not according to the ifu.The valve was positioned to high, so it was removed and re-collapsed against the ifu.The valve was re-implanted, this time with an assistant holding the guiding sutures.The surgeon ballooned the valve at 3 atm (off-label), and warm saline was applied.The aortotomy was closed and the patient was weaned from bypass.On echo, the placement of the valve was correct.A small paravalvular leak was identified on the non-coronary side where there was previously a large bulk of calcium.After de-airing, the valve migrated into the sinuses and a paravalvular and central leak were observed.The heart was reportedly manipulated during the de-airing process which could have led to the observed dislodgement.Cardiopulmonary bypass was resumed and the aortotomy was re-opened.Visual inspection confirmed that the valve was too high, as indicated by echo.The valve was once again removed, and further decalcification was performed where the initial paravalvular leak was identified.The valve was re-collapsed and re-implanted, with an assistant holding the guiding sutures.Visual inspection confirmed the appropriate placement of the valve, and good coaptation.The vale was ballooned for 30 seconds at 4 atm, and warm saline was applied.The aortotomy was closed, and the patient was weaned from bypass.Echo confirmed appropriate valve placement, and no leaks were identified.The mean gradient was 5 mmhg.The first and second cross-clamp times were 84 minutes and 60 minutes, respectively.The patient is doing well, with good sinus rhythm and function post-operatively.
|