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 complaints reported from this lot.Based on available information, the reported slda was due to challenging patient anatomy.The reported unexpected medical intervention was a result of case-specific circumstances.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design, or labeling.Na.
|
It was reported that a patient presented with grade 4 functional mitral regurgitation (mr), difficult anatomy with reported cleft in anterior leaflet segment 2 (a2), and a small posterior leaflet at grasping areas (lateral and medial 7mm) for a mitraclip procedure.The first mitraclip ntw was implanted on anterior and posterior leaflet segments 3 (a3-p3) with success targeting the medial jet.During use of the second ntw to target a1-p1, the clip was in the left atrium and did not come in contact with the first clip when the p3 leaflet was detached from the first clip.A single leaflet device attachment (slda) occurred with first clip.There was no leaflet damage or rupture of chordae observed.Per the physician, the leaflet was small and fragile, which contributed to the slda.The second clip was implanted to stabilize the slda and reduce the jet at lateral side of the clip.The first clip remains very stable and attached to the anterior leaflet.The mr was reduced to grade 2.There were no adverse patient sequelae or clinically significant delay.
|