Occupation: other, senior counsel, litigation.Please note that the exact event date is unknown and the event date is the complaint awareness date.(b)(4).As reported, the patient underwent placement of a trapease vena cava filter.The indication for the filter placement was not reported.At some point after the filter implantation, the patient became aware that the filter had tilted, tented and was associated with perforation.The product was not returned for analysis and the sterile lot number has not been provided; therefore, no device analysis nor device history record review could be performed.The trapease vena cava filter is indicated for use in the prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism (pe) via percutaneous placement in the inferior vena cava (ivc) for patients in which anticoagulants are contraindicated, anticoagulant therapy for thromboembolic disease has failed, emergency treatment following massive pe where anticipated benefits of conventional therapy are reduced or for chronic, recurrent pe where anticoagulant therapy has failed, or is contraindicated.The purpose of a vena cava filter is to catch thrombus from the lower extremities as it travels along normal blood flow patterns up towards the heart.Without images or procedural films for review, the reported filter tilt, altered shape and perforation events could not be confirmed and the exact cause could not be determined.Ivc filter tilt has been associated with the anatomy of the vessel, specifically asymmetry and tortuousness.Additionally, the timing and mechanism of the filter tilt is unknown.Altered shape of the device is a known potential event associated with use of the ivc filters, the ivc is a dynamic vessel subject to ongoing physical stressed and this and impact the shape of the filter struts over time.It is unknown if the tilt contributed to the reported perforation.A review of the instructions for use (ifu) notes vessel damage such as intimal tears and perforation as procedural complications related to ivc filters.Perforation from removable filters is relatively common, and directly related to how long the filter has been in place.Studies have noted a greater than 80% perforation rate overall, with all filters imaged after 71 days from implantation revealing some level of perforation.Clinical factors that may have influenced the event include the patient¿s pre-existing co-morbidities, pharmacological issues and lesion characteristics.Given the limited information available for review, there is nothing to suggest that a malfunction in the design and manufacturing process of the device; therefore, no corrective action will be taken.Should additional information become available, the file will be updated accordingly.Please note that this is the initial report for this product.
|
As reported by the legal brief, the patient underwent placement of a trapease vena cava filter.The report states that the filter subsequently malfunctioned and caused injury and damage to the patient including, but not limited to tilted, tenting, perforation.
|