D6a: year valid medtronic is submitting this report to comply with fda reporting regulations under 21 cfr parts 4 and 803.This report is based upon information obtained by medtronic, which the company may not have been able to fully investigate or verify prior to the date the report was required by the fda.Medtronic has made reasonable efforts to obtain more complete information and has provided as much relevant information as is available to the company as of the submission date of this report.This report does not constitute an admission or a conclusion by fda, medtronic, or its employees that the device, medtronic, or its employee caused or contributed to the event described in the report.In particular, this report does not constitute an admission by anyone that the product described in this report has any ¿defects¿ or has ¿malfunctioned¿.These words are included in the fda 3500a form and are fixed items for selection created by the fda to categorize the type of event solely for the purpose of regulatory reporting.Medtronic objects to the use of these words and others like them because of the lack of definition and the connotations implied by these terms.This statement should be included with any information or report disclosed to the public under the freedom of information act.Any required fields that are unpopulated are blank because the information is currently unknown or unavailable.A good faith effort will be made to obtain the applicable information relevant to the report.If information is provided in the future, a supplemental report will be issued.
|
Medtronic received information that approximately 16 years post implant of this 23mm aortic bioprosthetic valve, it was explanted and replaced with a 23mm mechanical valve of a different manufacturer.A supra-coronary ascending aorta replacement was also performed using another manufacturers device during the same procedure. the reason for the replacement was reported as a severe leak.It was noted that the valve, which had been implanted using the direct suture technique under the coronary artery, showed degeneration as two of its three leaflets were observed to be torn and the non coronary leaflet was adhered to the free wall of the non coronary sinus.It was mentioned that the coronary ostia were in a normal position relative to the ring plane.The leaflets were resected.It was stated that the patient was experiencing dyspnea prior to the replacement procedure and a transesophageal echocardiogram (tee) had been performed which showed the elusive, severe degeneration of the valve with a prolapsed aspect of the right antero cusp eccentric towards the large mitral valve.No additional adverse patient effects were reported.
|