The device was returned for evaluation and an engineering evaluation was performed.The returned device was visually examined for any abnormalities and the following was observed.Crimped valve: one (1) strut bent on the inflow side.Three (3) struts exposed through skirt, normal after manipulation during insertion through sheath.Expanded valve: one (1) strut remains bent.Three (3) struts remain exposed through skirt.Frame is canted and deformed.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 of valve frame damage was confirmed based on evaluation of the returned device and imagery.A review of the dhr, lot history, and complaint history 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 valve strut bent backwards in esheath during advancement''.Procedural fluoroscopy shows an inflow valve strut bent outwards within the sheath.Per the training manual, ''push force can vary due to angle of insertion, thv size, vessel diameter, tortuosity and degree of calcification'', ''if push force is high, consider slightly pulling back the sheath 1-2 cm while advancing the thv/delivery system'', and ''do not over-manipulate the sheath at any time''.Per 3mensio, the patient has calcification and tortuosity in the access vessels.Calcification and tortuosity can result in the creation of sub-optimal angles during delivery system insertion that may lead to increased interaction between the valve and the inner lumen of the sheath.In this case, excessive device manipulation or high push force can lead to the valve struts interacting with the sheath and result in the frame damage at the valve inflow side.As such, available information suggests that patient factors (calcification, tortuosity) and/or procedural factors (excessive device manipulation) may have contributed to the complaint event.No device or labeling problem was identified during the evaluation.Therefore, no further escalation is required.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.
|