Edwards received notification of a pascal precision ace in mitral position.2 months and 15 days after the initial mitral procedure, the patient underwent a concomitant pascal re-intervention to treat tricuspid regurgitation (tr) and recurrent mitral regurgitation (mr).At the initial procedure, two pascal ace devices were implanted in mitral position to treat a big prolapse in the lateral part of the valve and the result was from mr grade 4 to mr grade 1.There were reportedly no issues during the initial procedure.During the re-intervention, tr was treated with one pascal ace device in p1-s position without incidents.Starting tr was grade 3 and final tr was grade 1.Additionally, it was observed that the mr was potentially related to a leaflet tear and an orifice in the posterior leaflet in the area where the pascal was implanted.As per medical opinion, leaflet mobility could have caused the leaflet damage and there was no allegation against the device.The leak in the pml was treated with a vascular plug.The result was good and uneventful.The patient was in a good clinical condition.After further analyzing the anatomy and the case, as per physician's opinion, the recurrence of mr was not due to leaflet tearing.Their theory is that a pascal was placed in an area of a pml indentation and that a few days later after release part of the posterior paddle of the pascal got loose on that spot due to lack of tissue.This led to an increase in mobility of that device and then a regurgitant orifice leading to mr.This was not a tearing nor a full slda and this explained why they treated it with a plug.Physicians felt this was a pretty challenging case due to the anatomy and still felt good about both result and device safety.
|
The complaint for reduced therapeutic efficacy over time / incorrect implant position was confirmed with objective evidence via the imaging evaluation that determined a qualitatively increase in mitral regurgitation at baseline pre-procedure 3d en face with color doppler of the second intervention in comparison to the one obtained immediately post the first procedure.The device history record review was completed, and this device passed all manufacturing and sterilization inspections.There were no nonconformance related to this complaint event.Available information suggests that the initial placement of the implant over the pml indentation, leaflet capture at commissure and inadequate insertion may have contributed to the event.
|