The device was not returned for analysis.A review of the lot history record revealed no manufacturing nonconformities issued to the reported lot that would have contributed to this event.Additionally, a review of the complaint history identified no similar incidents reported from this lot.Based on available information, the reported device damaged by another device (caused damage) associated with the sgc interacting with the pacemaker leads was due to procedural circumstances (proximity of pacemaker leads to path of travel for the sgc) during sgc removal.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design, or labeling.Na.
|
This is filed to report device damaged another device.It was reported that a mitraclip procedure was performed to treat functional mitral regurgitation (mr) with a grade of 3, slightly degenerated anterior mitral leaflet (aml) and posterior mitral leaflet (pml), pml was only 7.5mm long, and posterior aspect of the annulus and parts of the pml were calcified.A mitraclip ntw was implanted, but following implant, a single leaflet device attachment (slda) occurred.The clip had detached from the posterior leaflet and remained attached to the anterior leaflet.To stabilize the slda clip, a second clip was implanted.The physician¿s assessment for the cause of the slda was due to shortness of the pml, and not having enough posterior leaflet inserted.The procedure was completed with two clips implanted.The mr was reduced to grade 1-2.There was no clinically significant delay in the procedure and no adverse patient effects.One day after the procedure, due to not using fluoroscopy while removing the steerable guide catheter, the pacemaker leads in the right atrium and ventricle (ra and rv) were observed to have detached.A pacemaker change will be required.No additional information provided.
|