The device was not returned for analysis.A review of the lot history record identified no manufacturing nonconformities issued to the reported lot that would have contributed to the reported event.Additionally, a review of the complaint history identified no similar complaints from the lot.All available information was investigated and the reported slda appears to be related to patient conditions and due to fragile leaflet.Image resolution poor is related to procedural conditions as imaging was reported to be suboptimal, but it was confirmed that the device was visualized.Unexpected medical intervention was a result of case-specific circumstances.There is no indication of a product issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling.The additional mitraclip device referenced in b5 is being filed under a separate medwatch report.
|
It was reported that a mitraclip procedure was performed to treat functional mitral regurgitation (mr) with a grade of 4 and a restricted posterior leaflet.It was noted that imaging quality was suboptimal, but the device was visualized.A mitraclip ntw (30510r1016) was implanted without issues.However, post implant, there was motion on the device.The device was suspected to have turned due to tension.It appeared to be a single leaflet device attachment (slda).The physician was uncertain if the posterior leaflet was fully detached, but noted that the fragile leaflets contributed to the detachment.Another mitraclip ntw (30510r1015) was implanted next to the previously implanted clip for stabilization.However, post implant, the second clip also showed movement.The clip remained stable and well inserted.The procedure was completed with two clips implanted, reducing the mr to trace.There was no clinically significant delay in the procedure.
|