• Decrease font size
  • Return font size to normal
  • Increase font size
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION EMBOZENE MICROSPHERES; EMBOLIC DEVICE

  • Print
  • Share
  • E-mail
-
Super Search Devices@FDA
510(k) | DeNovo | Registration & Listing | Adverse Events | Recalls | PMA | HDE | Classification | Standards
CFR Title 21 | Radiation-Emitting Products | X-Ray Assembler | Medsun Reports | CLIA | TPLC
 

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION EMBOZENE MICROSPHERES; EMBOLIC DEVICE Back to Search Results
Device Problem Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
Patient Problems Hemorrhage/Bleeding (1888); Prolapse (2475)
Event Date 01/04/2022
Event Type  Injury  
Event Description
It was reported via a journal article that patient complications occurred.The pure study is a randomised controlled trial (rct) comparing the clinical and mri outcomes of patients treated with non-spherical polyvinyl alcohol, ns-pva (contour pva - boston scientific-355-500 & 500-700 microns) versus calibrated hydrogel microspheres (embozene - varian inc 700 & 900 microns) for symptomatic uterine fibroids.Materials and methods: prospective, ethically approved non-sponsored rct in 84 patients in a single uk tertiary ir unit, isrctn registry trial number isrctn18191539 in 2013 and 2014.All patients with symptomatic fibroid disease were eligible.Uae followed standardised protocol with ufs-qol and contrast-enhanced mri before and 6 months post uae.Outcome measures included: (1) uterine fibroid symptom and quality of life questionnaire (ufs-qol).(2) percentage total and dominant fibroid infarction.(3) uterine and dominant fibroid volume reduction.(4) volume of embolics.Results: sixty-three patients completed the qol follow-up (33 ns-pva vs 30 embozenes), the groups were equivalent at baseline.Patients were followed up for 6 months following uae.There was no significant difference in symptom scores or hr-qol between ns-pva and embozenes, p = 0.67 and 0.21, respectively.92.7% of patients treated with ns-pva achieved [90% dominant fibroid infarction versus 61.8% treated with embozenes (p = 0.0016).66% of patients treated with ns = pva achieved [90% total fibroid percentage infarction compared with 35% in the embozene group (p = 0.011).The mean vials/syringes used were 5.2 with embozenes versus 4.1 using pva (p = 0.08).One patient experienced a major adverse event which was felt to be unrelated to the trial itself but an unexpected complication of uterine artery embolisation for a submucosal fibroid.This was considered a grade three complication according to cirse classification to report adverse events [14].A 35-year-old patient underwent uae with embozenes for a solitary submucosal fibroid.Her initial recovery was uneventful but 10 days later she represented with vaginal bleeding, later requiring blood transfusion and mri revealed uterine prolapse, then proceeding to laparotomy to correct uterine inversion and at that time myomectomy of the solitary fibroid was performed.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
Date of event: article publication date used.Initial reporter facility name: (b)(6).Das, raj, et al."randomised controlled trial of particles used in uterine fibroid embolisation (pure): non-spherical polyvinyl alcohol versus calibrated microspheres." cardiovascular and interventional radiology 45.2 (2022): 207-215.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
EMBOZENE MICROSPHERES
Type of Device
EMBOLIC DEVICE
Manufacturer (Section D)
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
two scimed place
maple grove MN 55311
Manufacturer (Section G)
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC LIMITED
model farm road
cork
EI  
Manufacturer Contact
jay johnson
4100 hamline ave n
arden hills, MN 55112
6515810888
MDR Report Key15176099
MDR Text Key297347672
Report Number2134265-2022-08383
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code NAJ
Combination Product (y/n)N
Reporter Country CodeUK
Number of Events Reported1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Literature,Company Representative
Reporter Occupation Physician
Type of Report Initial
Report Date 08/05/2022
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received08/05/2022
Is this an Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is this a Product Problem Report? No
Device Operator Health Professional
Was Device Available for Evaluation? No
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? Yes
Date Manufacturer Received07/12/2022
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? Device Not Returned to Manufacturer
Is the Device Single Use? Yes
Type of Device Usage Initial
Patient Sequence Number1
Patient Outcome(s) Required Intervention;
-
-