Based on the overall information currently available in this report, there is no clear evidence that the jada system caused or contributed to the need for any escalating treatment to preclude permanent body damage/impairment.Although it was reported that jada did not control the abnormal post-partum bleeding, the lack of adequate cervical dilation precluded the jada system to advance and be positioned appropriately in the uterus in order to control the abnormal post-partum bleeding.Per the jada system ifu "secure visualization of the cervix to confirm it is dilated greater than or equal to 3 cm to allow for placement of jada." and "for c-sections: it is contraindicated for cervix < 3 cm dilated before use of jada" however, out of an abundance of caution, the company will report this case as a serious injury mdr.
|
Alydia health received a jada experience survey (jes) on (b)(6) 2022, that had a handwritten statement in the area designated for 'what treatment(s) did you use to treat the abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding that was not controlled with the jada system?' that stated, "total qbl 1568, accreta; cervix not dilated enough and jada could not be advanced.Bleeding was at the point controlled and bakri was not placed." the patient in this case is described as having a multiple pregnancy, gestation diabetes, and gestational hypertension.She had a scheduled cesarean section on (b)(6) 2022 delivery of 37 week "di/di twins" and her abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding or pph started within one hour after delivery.Prior to jada treatment she received unknown doses of cytotec 600 units and two units of packed red blood cells.The amount of blood loss prior toe jada use was not reported.There is not report of if or how much sterile fluid the cervical seal was filled with.And the amount of blood evacuated with the jada was not reported.This is consistent with the note that states the device was not able to be correctly placed due to inadequate cervical dilation.There is no other information for this case provided on this survey.There is limited information for this jes at this time.A request was sent to the site on (b)(6) 2022, to inquire if the lot number was available, if the device was retained, and follow up questions regarding this case.The site reported that the device was discarded and the lot number was not documented.They described the patient as, "ms, a (b)(6)." they did not provide any additional information.This case involves the attempted use of jada following a cesarean section where the patient's cervix was not dilated enough to advance the jada.No injury or additional treatment were reported for this case, bleeding ceased without further intervention.A mdr will be filed for this case out of an abundance of caution.
|