Model Number CNA23 |
Device Problems
Gradient Increase (1270); Incomplete Coaptation (2507); Device Operates Differently Than Expected (2913)
|
Patient Problems
Aortic Regurgitation (1716); Aortic Valve Stenosis (1717); No Information (3190)
|
Event Date 08/22/2017 |
Event Type
malfunction
|
Event Description
|
On (b)(6) 2017 a crown prt aortic heart valve size 23mm was implanted.After the procedure (on the second day) an echo displayed abnormal findings where the physician noted that the tip of one of the leaflets was not functioning as expected.On (b)(6) 2017 re-operation was performed and the crown valve was explanted.The physician noted that the valve appeared to be functioning as bi-cuspid as one leaflet was not opening and appeared damaged.
|
|
Event Description
|
Prior to device explant the tee showed high gradient and stenosis of the valve.An edwards magna size 23 was implanted after the crown device was explanted.The echo showed the bioprosthesis in the right position and function with max.Gradient 24mmhg, no leak.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
The returned valve prosthesis was received in general good conditions.Visual inspection showed all three leaflets appeared to be equally pliable but stiffened, which is consistent with valves that have been returned and decontaminated.Visibly, all three leaflets appear to be sewn into place at all three posts and at the base of the covered stent.The sewing ring is noticeably deformed.The function test video was reviewed to qualitatively evaluate the valve in 4 phases: closed, opening, open and closing.Video showed synchronous opening and closing with smooth continuous motion and no leaflet fluttering.Meets all function test criteria observable on video for as size 23 crown prt.The external review of the echocardiogram report: on (b)(6) 2017 ¿ tee - there is a bioprosthetic valve in aortic position.The valve is opening like a bicuspid valve in that the single piece of pericardium seems to be detached from one of the prosthetic struts.There is at least moderate aortic regurgitation that seems to be central (not paravalvular).The manufacturer is continuing analysis of the returned device to determine the root cause of this event, as of investigation results received to date the probable cause is patient anatomy factors.This will be clarified through further emdr once known.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Review of the data filed in the device history record confirmed that the returned valve satisfied all material, dimensional, and performance standards required for crown prt valve cna23 - sn (b)(4) at the time of manufacture and release.The visual inspection performed on the returned prosthesis confirmed the absence of pre-existing defects.A deformed geometry of the valve was detected.The hydrodynamic testing conducted on the returned prosthesis confirmed that the device fully respects the requirements of iso 5840 except a delay on leaflet 3 during the valve opening and closing phases, reasonably correspondant to the reported event.Nevertheless no regurgitation or coaptation defects were observed also taking in consideration the not optimal valve conditions.The anatomical morphology or the suture technique can be the root cause of the induced deformation and anomalous leaflets behavior.Based on the performed analysis the reported event cannot be explained by any factor intrinsic in the involved device.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|