It was reported that a mitraclip procedure was performed to treat functional mitral regurgitation (mr) with a grade of 4, restricted posterior leaflet, prolapsed posterior leaflet, and dilated left atrium.A mitraclip xtw (30329r3008) was inserted without issues.However, difficulties with positioning the clip due to patient anatomy occurred.While in the mitral valve, after grasping attempts, it was observed that both grippers were not functioning as intended.It was noted that after the last grasping attempt, the grippers were not raised before opening the clip to invert.When the grippers were raised, the back side of the grippers interacted with the leaflets.Troubleshooting was performed, but the issue was unable to be resolved.Therefore, the clip was removed from the patient.While outside the patient, the clip system was examined and it was observed that both gripper lines were no longer inserted into the distal shaft of the catheter, leaving the grippers in the lowered position.After a new and better transseptal puncture, another mitraclip xtw (30329r3007) was inserted without issues and implanted on the mitral valve.To further reduce the mr, another mitraclip xtw (30329r3009) was advanced into the left ventricle (lv).However, while in the lv, the clip became caught in chordae.Troubleshooting was performed, but the issue was not able to be resolved.The clip could not be freed from chordae.Therefore, the clip was implanted on only one leaflet (the anterior leaflet) and chordae, where it was stuck, laterally to the first implanted clip.It was noted that there was some interaction of the first and second implanted clip, reducing the effect of the first clip.The procedure was completed with two clips implanted, reducing the mr to a grade of 3-4.It was noted that the mitraclip xtw (30329r3007) was stable on the leaflets.There was no clinically significant delay in the procedure.
|
All available information was investigated, and the reported multiple gripper actuation issue and broken gripper lines were confirmed via returned device analysis.The reported difficult positioning due to anatomy could not be replicated in a testing environment.A review of the lot history record revealed no manufacturing nonconformities issued to the reported lot that would have contributed to this event.Additionally, a review of the complaint history identified no similar complaints reported from this lot.Based on available information and the returned device analysis, the reported difficult positioning was due to patient anatomy.The cause of the reported multiple gripper actuation issue and broken gripper lines were unable to be determined.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design, or labeling.
|