|
Model Number SGC0701 |
Device Problems
Difficult to Remove (1528); Difficult to Advance (2920)
|
Patient Problem
Perforation (2001)
|
Event Date 10/27/2021 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Event Description
|
This is filed to report septal tear, intervention, difficult to remove.It was reported that this was a mitraclip procedure to treat degenerative mitral regurgitation (dmr) with a grade of 4.Noted very thick posterior leaflet and several calcium nodules on the leaflets.There was difficulty visualizing due to shadowing from the device and the calcium.The clip delivery system (cds) was advanced through the steerable guide catheter (sgc) into the left atrium.While making iterative movements to steer the clip down to the mitral valve, the sgc was mistakenly pulled back into the right atrium.Unsuccessful attempts were made to push the guide back into the left atrium due to interaction with the anatomy.Subsequently, it was attempted to pull the clip back into the sgc but this was not possible and it was assumed that septal tissue was trapped between the clip and the sgc tip.The sgc and clip were very slowly and carefully pulled back into the right atrium together.The clip was then able to be pulled back into the sgc and removed.A small amount of tissue was noted on the end of one clip arm and a septal tear was noted measuring 10 mm on echo.The sgc was removed and re-prepped and advanced through the septal tear.A new cds was prepped and successfully implanted.Moderate to severe mr remained so a second cds was advanced and implanted lateral to the first clip.The residual mr was mild.Post procedure, the septal tear was measured at 16 mm and an atrial septal defect (asd) closure device was successfully implanted.No additional information was provided.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
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 identified no other complaint reported from this lot.Based on available information, the reported difficult to remove (cds/sgc) and difficult to advance appear to be due to procedural conditions.The reported poor imaging was due to a combination of challenging patient anatomy and procedural circumstances.The reported perforation appears to be a result from reported difficult to remove and difficult to advance issues.The reported patient effect of perforation is listed in the mitraclip system instructions for use (ifu) as a known possible complication associated with mitraclip procedures.Lastly, the reported unexpected medical intervention was a result of case-specific circumstances.There is no indication of product issue with respect to manufacture, design, or labeling.The additional device referenced is being filed under a separate medwatch report number.Na.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
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 identified no other complaint reported from this lot.Based on available information, the reported difficult to remove (cds/sgc) and difficult to advance appear to be due to procedural conditions.The reported poor imaging was due to a combination of challenging patient anatomy and procedural circumstances.The reported perforation appears to be a result from reported difficult to remove and difficult to advance issues.The reported patient effect of perforation is listed in the mitraclip system instructions for use (ifu) as a known possible complication associated with mitraclip procedures.Lastly, the reported unexpected medical intervention was a result of case-specific circumstances.There is no indication of product issue with respect to manufacture, design, or labeling.The additional device referenced is being filed under a separate medwatch report number.Na.
|
|
Event Description
|
This is filed to report septal tear, intervention, difficult to remove.It was reported that this was a mitraclip procedure to treat degenerative mitral regurgitation (dmr) with a grade of 4.Noted very thick posterior leaflet and several calcium nodules on the leaflets.There was difficulty visualizing due to shadowing from the device and the calcium.The clip delivery system (cds) was advanced through the steerable guide catheter (sgc) into the left atrium.While making iterative movements to steer the clip down to the mitral valve, the sgc was mistakenly pulled back into the right atrium.Unsuccessful attempts were made to push the guide back into the left atrium due to interaction with the anatomy.Subsequently, it was attempted to pull the clip back into the sgc but this was not possible and it was assumed that septal tissue was trapped between the clip and the sgc tip.The sgc and clip were very slowly and carefully pulled back into the right atrium together.The clip was then able to be pulled back into the sgc and removed.A small amount of tissue was noted on the end of one clip arm and a septal tear was noted measuring 10 mm on echo.The sgc was removed and re-prepped and advanced through the septal tear.A new cds was prepped and successfully implanted.Moderate to severe mr remained so a second cds was advanced and implanted lateral to the first clip.The residual mr was mild.Post procedure, the septal tear was measured at 16 mm and an atrial septal defect (asd) closure device was successfully implanted.No additional information was provided.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|