The device was not returned for analysis.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.The investigation determined the reported poor image resolution was due to imaging equipment and the anatomy.The reported device damaged by another device (caused damage) appears to be related to the reported poor image resolution.There is no indication of a product issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling.Na.
|
It was reported that a patient presented with grade 4 primary mitral regurgitation (mr), poor leaflet quality, and bi-leaflet mitral prolapse for a mitraclip procedure.The first xtw was implanted.The second xtw was implanted lateral to the first.The grasp was good and a lateral mr jet remined.The third nt clip was attempted to implant laterally to the xtw.During positioning, the second clip detached from the anterior leaflet.Visualizing the clip was noted to be difficult to the imaging equipment and the anatomy.A single leaflet device attachment occurred (slda).There was a possible interaction between the nt and the xtw, resulting in the slda.Both clips were close in fluoroscopy and it was noted to be difficult to confirm due to poor imaging quality.The leaflets were "barlow's-like" and of poor leaflet quality, which could have increased chances of slda.The nt was then removed from the patient.An xt was implanted in-between both xtws.This stabilized the movement of the slda clip.The patient maintained severe mr at the end of the procedure, but remained stable.There was a delay, but it was noted to be clinically significant.
|