Model Number PVS23 |
Device Problems
Perivalvular Leak (1457); Device Dislodged or Dislocated (2923)
|
Patient Problem
No Information (3190)
|
Event Date 08/28/2012 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
As the device remains implanted in the patient, a full analysis on the prosthesis cannot be performed.A complete manufacturing and quality records review for the device has been performed.The results confirmed that the device satisfied all material, visual and performance standards required at the time of manufacture and release.Further investigation is ongoing.Device not explanted.
|
|
Event Description
|
The manufacturer was informed on this event through the sure avr registry.On (b)(6) 2012, a (b)(6) years old female patient received a pvs23 to replace the native (bicuspid) stenotic aortic valve.The procedure was performed through mini-thoracotomy and no concomitant procedures were performed.The valve was successfully implanted.However, on the same day, the patient underwent an open surgical procedure due to non-structural valve dysfunction.The valve was not explanted.On (b)(6) 2012, a perivalvular leak of 1+ was observed.At discharge on (b)(6) 2012, the tte showed a perivalvular leak of 1+.On (b)(6) 2013, perivalvular and central leaks were observed.
|
|
Event Description
|
The manufacturer was informed on this event through the sure avr registry.On (b)(6) 2012, a 73 years old female patient received a pvs23 to replace the native (bicuspid) stenotic aortic valve.The procedure was performed through mini-thoracotomy and no concomitant procedures were performed.A device dislocation was detected at the end of the surgical procedure.The patient was treated by repositioning of the perceval, and the repositioning occurred before moving the patient in the intensive care unit.The surgical procedure was successfully performed and no complications were reported.The device functionality was monitored and a perivalvular leak of 1+ was observed post-operatively ((b)(6) 2018).On 12 feb 2013, perivalvular and central leaks of 1+ were observed.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Based on the clarifications received from the site, the re-intervention occurred due to device dislocation detected at the end of the surgery.However, it is not possible to confirm the exact root cause of the device dislocation at this time.Furthermore, it should be recognized that the perceval ifu includes a precaution, stating that "data from clinical or in vitro testing are not available to establish the safe use of the perceval valve in patients with congenital bicuspid aortic valve.Therefore, careful consideration of its use is recommended in such cases, especially when the depth of the 2 sinuses in the lvot is unequal." it could be possible that the patient's anatomy may have contributed to the reported event.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|