(b)(4).During processing of this complaint, attempts were made to obtain complete event, patient and device information.The customer reported the device will not be returned.Investigation is not yet complete.A follow up report will be submitted with all relevant information.
|
This is filed to report the tissue damage.It was reported that on (b)(6) 2017, the patient, with functional mitral regurgitation (mr), underwent a mitraclip procedure, treating mr of grade 4.Patient anatomy included a large left atrium and left ventricle, as well as a restricted posterior (p) leaflet at the p2 leaflet segment.Coaptation was noted to be poor.Two clips were implanted, the first centrolateral, and the second in a central position.A third clip was attempted to be placed; however, due to the poor coaptation, difficulty was noted during grasping.The clip was unable to grasp the leaflets and the posterior leaflet was damaged at the centromedial position.The third clip was not implanted, and after two clips were implanted, the mr grade was reduced to grade 3.No intervention was performed to treat the damaged posterior leaflet.No additional information was provided.
|
(b)(4).The device was not returned for analysis.A review of the lot history record identified no manufacturing nonconformities issued to the reported lot that would have contributed to the reported event.Additionally, a review of the complaint history identified no similar incidents from the lot.The reported patient effect of mitral valve injury as listed in the mitraclip system instructions for use is a known possible complication associated with mitraclip procedures.All available information was investigated and the reported difficulty grasping the leaflets appears to be related to patient morphology/pathology.The reported tissue damage appears to be related to procedural circumstances of difficulty grasping.Based on the information reviewed, there is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to design, manufacturing, or labeling of the device.
|