The manufacturer is conservatively reporting this event due to the early implantation time following the perceval implant (postoperative day 5) and due to the intraoperative procedural oversizing, which may have contributed to the reported event.However, no further investigation is warranted at this time due to the patient's pre-existing conduction abnormalities which made the patient at risk for a postoperative pacemaker implant, in agreement with the physician's feedback received.Conduction disorders are common in patients with aortic valve diseases.As a result, it is common for patients to receive permanent pacemaker implantation after aortic valve replacement.Risk factors include preexisting conducting disease and preoperative aortic regurgitation.This event is, therefore, a known, inherent risk of the procedure, and it is listed among the potential adverse events in the perceval ifu.Device not explanted.
|
On (b)(6) 2020, a patient received a perceval pvs25.It is reported that the patient received a pacemaker for an av block on postoperative day 5.A good patient outcome is reported.Per additional information received, the patient had a pre-existing bi-fascicular block, which reportedly made the patient at risk for a pacemaker implant.At the time of perceval implant, a pvs27 was initially placed, but the device was explanted before weaning the patient from bypass due to device oversizing.
|