It was reported to boston scientific corporation that a spaceoar vue device was implanted during a spaceoar vue implant procedure on (b)(6) 2022.The procedure was performed under monitored anesthesia care (mac) with mild intravenous sedation with propofol.Two fiducial markers were placed prior to the implant procedure that reportedly went "very smoothly".Approximately three to five minutes after the conclusion of the procedure, the staff was helping the patient get dressed as he was waking up from mac sedation.The patient was sitting up, putting on his underwear and pants when "all of a sudden" he started to gurgle, cough, stopped breathing, became pulseless and went into cardiac arrest.The patient was reportedly in atrial fibrillation.It was noted he had no shortness of breath, no rash, and no warning before quickly becoming pulseless.The staff then began the code process.Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (cpr) was performed, and the patient started to spontaneously breathe at the facility.Emergency medical services (ems) arrived in less than five minutes to transport the patient to the hospital.The patient had one more arrest in the ambulance and then in the emergency room he arrested a third time.The patient was admitted to the hospital.He also had to go on dialysis temporarily.An echocardiogram was performed, on an unspecified date, which "looked good" and was normal.Following the initial report, an update on an unspecified date was received that the patient was in stable condition, but in the intensive care unit (icu) and was intubated.The patient's physician and anesthesiologist were under the assumption that the patient had an underlying heart condition that was not documented or communicated to the staff.The physician and staff did not reveal any inclination that they believed the incident was caused by the spaceoar hydrogel.There was nothing witnessed during the procedure that would have led them to believe the need was intervascular.The patient's son later, on an unspecified date, stated it was possible the patient had an allergy to "some kind of iodine" however there was no record of this.The hospital reportedly thought it was a possible allergic reaction.The patient, however, didn't present with typical allergic features as the symptoms came on with no warning.It was reported the patient did have a rash "eventually" when he got to the hospital.It went away quickly with intravenous solumedrol.It was noted that it was unclear which of the products the patient might have reacted to.It was also noted the patient had a fusion biopsy under anesthesia a "few months ago" in the same office.He would have received the same anesthesia including lidocaine to his skin and the same antibiotics.A possibility of having the patient sent to allergy to investigate the possibility of a polyethylene glycols (peg) allergy was raised, however it was not specified if this would occur.The patient also has a loop recorder that was placed "years ago" due to bradycardia.It hadn't been interrogated at all, so the patient's physician planned to suggest to his primary care provider that the loop recorder should be looked at.As of (b)(6) 2022, the patient was extubated and walking with a walker.As of the date of this report, the etiology of the event remained unknown.
|