• Decrease font size
  • Return font size to normal
  • Increase font size
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES EDWARDS SAPIEN 3 ULTRA TRANSCATHETER HEART VALVE; AORTIC VALVE, PROSTHESIS, PERCUTANEOUSLY DELIVERED

  • Print
  • Share
  • E-mail
-
Super Search Devices@FDA
510(k) | DeNovo | Registration & Listing | Adverse Events | Recalls | PMA | HDE | Classification | Standards
CFR Title 21 | Radiation-Emitting Products | X-Ray Assembler | Medsun Reports | CLIA | TPLC
 

EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES EDWARDS SAPIEN 3 ULTRA TRANSCATHETER HEART VALVE; AORTIC VALVE, PROSTHESIS, PERCUTANEOUSLY DELIVERED Back to Search Results
Model Number 9750TFX23
Device Problem Material Deformation (2976)
Patient Problem No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
Event Date 09/11/2023
Event Type  malfunction  
Manufacturer Narrative
The investigation is ongoing.H3 other text : the device was discarded.
 
Event Description
As reported, it was a case of an implant of a 23mm sapien 3 ultra valve, in aortic position by transfemoral approach.During insertion of the commander delivery system through esheath, it was observed that the valve got stuck after the hub of esheath and was not possible to advance.It was decided to withdraw the system as a single unit.After the withdrawal, it was noted that the valve puncture the hub of esheath.A new kit was prepared and the procedure was performed successfully.There was no harm to the patient and the final patient outcome was good.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
The device was not returned to edwards lifesciences for evaluation.Without the device returned for evaluation, visual inspection, functional testing and dimensional analysis were unable to be completed.Imagery was provided from the site and revealed the following: valve seems to be stuck after hub of esheath.One (1) bent strut outwards exposed through the strain relief.During manufacturing, the device undergoes multiple 100% inspections.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 the risk management documentation was performed, and no evidence of product non-conformances or labeling/ifu inadequacies were identified in the evaluation.The complaint was confirmed based on provided imagery.A review of the dhr, lot history, complaint history, and manufacturing mitigation did not provide any indication that a manufacturing non-conformance contributed to the complaint event.A review of ifu/training materials revealed no deficiencies.As reported, ''the loader was inserted but, when it was tried to insert the commander ds through esheath, it was observed that the valve got stuck after the hub of esheath and was not possible to advance.It was decided to withdraw it as a single unit.After the withdrawal, a perforation after the hub of esheath, caused by the valve''.Also ''as per medical opinion, the root cause of this event might be that the loader was far proximal when it was introduced the commander ds and, as this area was not protected by loader, the perforation occurred''.Per the ifu and training manual, the loader must be completely inserted into the sheath before delivery system and valve insertion.The loader is used to facilitate a smooth transition of the crimped valve through the sheath hub.If the loader was not inserted through the sheath properly, the crimped valve can be exposed and interact with the hemostasis valves within the sheath hub resulting in frame damage to the inflow of valve.In this case, it's reported that the loader was partially pulled back during delivery system and valve insertion through the sheath.It is possible that the valve struts at the outflow interacted with the sheath liner during the delivery system insertion which resulted in the sheath puncture, bent strut at the inflow side.As such, available information suggests that procedural factors (improper loader use) may have contributed to the complaint event.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.No ifu/labeling/training manual inadequacies were identified.Therefore, no corrective or preventative action nor product risk assessment is required at this time.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
EDWARDS SAPIEN 3 ULTRA TRANSCATHETER HEART VALVE
Type of Device
AORTIC VALVE, PROSTHESIS, PERCUTANEOUSLY DELIVERED
Manufacturer (Section D)
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES
1 edwards way
irvine CA 92614
Manufacturer (Section G)
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES
1 edwards way
irvine CA 92614
Manufacturer Contact
renee van dorne
1 edwards way
irvine, CA 92614
9492506385
MDR Report Key17831171
MDR Text Key324453238
Report Number2015691-2023-16212
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code NPT
Combination Product (y/n)N
Reporter Country CodeUS
PMA/PMN Number
P140031
Number of Events Reported1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Foreign,Health Professional,User Facility,Company Representative
Reporter Occupation Physician
Type of Report Initial,Followup
Report Date 11/10/2023
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Is this an Adverse Event Report? No
Is this a Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator Health Professional
Device Model Number9750TFX23
Was Device Available for Evaluation? No
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? Yes
Was the Report Sent to FDA? No
Initial Date Manufacturer Received 09/11/2023
Initial Date FDA Received09/28/2023
Supplement Dates Manufacturer Received11/07/2023
Supplement Dates FDA Received11/10/2023
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? Device Not Returned to Manufacturer
Date Device Manufactured05/09/2023
Is the Device Single Use? Yes
Is This a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial
Patient Sequence Number1
Patient Age80 YR
Patient SexFemale
-
-