Edwards received notification from our affiliate in iran.As reported, this was a case of an implant of a sapien 3 valve, by transfemoral approach.During the procedure, due to heavy calcification in the right femoral, the tip of the esheath was damaged.The shape of the esheath changed a little.It was decided to use a new esheath in the left femoral access site.The patient outcome was good, and the procedure was successful.Per follow-up with the initial reporter, the esheath damage was identified as a distal tip tear.
|
The device was not returned for evaluation.Therefore, a no product return engineering evaluation was performed.The device history record (dhr) review did not reveal any manufacturing nonconformance issues that would have contributed to the event.A lot history review was performed and revealed no other complaints relating to this event.During the manufacturing process, the device was visually inspected and tested several times.All the inspections are conducted on 100% of units, except in the case of product verification (pv) testing, where the tested units are chosen on a sampling basis.All tested sample units for this lot passed pv testing.These inspections and tests during the manufacturing process support that it is unlikely that a non-conformance contributed to the reported complaint.A review of edwards lifesciences risk management documentation was performed for this case.The reported event is an anticipated risk of the transcatheter heart valve procedure, additional assessment of the failure mode is not required at this time.The complaint sheath distal tip torn was unable to be confirmed due to no definitive characterization made by the site for specified sheath damage.However, no manufacturing nonconformance was identified during evaluation.Review of the dhr and lot history did not provide any indication that a manufacturing non-conformance would have contributed to the complaints.A review of manufacturing mitigations supports that the sheath has proper inspections in place to detect issues related to the complaint events.A review of ifu/training materials revealed no deficiencies.Furthermore, no abnormalities were noted during device unpacking or preparation.Per the complaint description, ''due to heavy calcification in the right femoral, the tip of the esheath was damaged, the shape of the esheath changed a little''.Per the training manual, ''push force can vary due to angle of access and insertion, thv size, vessel diameter, tortuosity and degree of calcification''.Calcification can reduce the vessel diameter and may increase restriction at the distal tip, which can lead to an increased potential for calcification to catch onto the sheath distal tip during advancement and tear it.As such, patient factors (calcification) may have contributed to the complaint event.However, a definitive root cause was unable to be determined at this time.No ifu/training manual deficiencies were identified.Therefore, no capa or product risk assessment (pra) escalation is required at this time.Complaint histories for all reported events are reviewed against trending control limits monthly, and any excursions above the control limits are assessed and documented as part of this monthly review.
|