On (b)(6) 2014, the patient underwent an endovascular procedure using the conformable gore® tag® thoracic endoprosthesis to treat a thoracic aortic aneurysm.It was reported that as the patient's femoral or iliac artery was not appropriate as an access due to the abdominal aorta replacement with a y graft, an initial plan for the procedure had been to access the device from the ascending aorta after the total debranching surgery to the brachiocephalic, the left common carotid, and the left subclavian artery.However, this plan was changed per the physician's request to the left femoral access with the debranching surgery to the left common carotid and the left subclavian artery, intentionally covering these arteries with the device.It was reported that the gore® dryseal sheath with hydrophilic coating was stuck at a tortuous leg of the y graft and could not be advanced, and that the device was then advanced outside the sheath to the intended position without any remarkable resistance noted.As planned the device was slowly deployed and intentionally and slightly covered the brachiocephalic artery.During removal of the delivery catheter of the device after the deployment, the leading olive was reportedly caught at the tortuous leg of the y graft at the level of common iliac artery.It was reported that as the physician forcibly removed the delivery catheter leading end including the leading olive and the 1-2cm of the polyimide was separated and remained in the patient.The physician made multiple attempts to remove the leading end with a snare catheter without success as the leading end was completely stuck at the tortuous leg and could not be moved.The physician then decided to convert the procedure to an unplanned aorto-uni-iliac (aui) with femoral-femoral bypass procedure.The gore® excluder® aaa endoprosthesis iliac extender component was implanted and covered the left leg.The blood flow to the left lower extremity was confirmed and the procedure was completed.The patient tolerated the procedure.The physician admitted that the delivery catheter should not have been forcibly removed and commented that the cause of the separation was the access from the left femoral artery, which was not appropriate.The physician also commented that there should be no issue with the leading end remaining in the patient as the area where it remains will be thrombosed in the near future and it will not move distally from the area.
|