This report is filed on the second clip delivery system for leaflet laceration after difficult leaflet grasping.It was reported that this was a mitraclip procedure treating functional mitral regurgitation (mr) grade 4.The patient presented with fibrotic leaflets and the medial and lateral portions of the mitral valve were thin.One mitraclip was implanted without reported issue and with satisfactory leaflet insertion.Mr was reduced to grade 2-3.A second clip delivery system (cds 70731u357) grasped the leaflets, however, there was inadequate leaflet insertion.The leaflets were grasped a second time; however, there was still inadequate leaflet insertion.Reportedly, it was difficult grasping the posterior leaflet.After the third grasping attempt and per echocardiogram, a new severe jet was noted through and lateral of the second mitraclip.This mitraclip was inverted and retracted into the left atrium.A laceration was observed on the posterior medial leaflet at the anterior 1 and posterior 1 segment.Mr returned to grade 4.This mitraclip was not implanted and the device was removed from the anatomy.There was no treatment provided and mr remains grade 4.The patient is in stable condition.The first implanted mitraclip remains stable and well seated on the leaflets.There was no additional information provided regarding this issue.
|
(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 did not indicate a lot-specific quality issue.The reported patient effects of worsening mitral regurgitation (mr) and tissue damage, as listed in the mitraclip system instructions for use (ifu), are known possible complications associated with mitraclip procedures.All available information was investigated and the reported failure to bond (leaflet capture-clip not implanted) appears to be related to the challenging patient morphology/pathology (fibrotic leaflets, thin medial and the lateral part of the mitral valve resulted in inability to capture leaflets and finally not implanting the clip and removing device from anatomy).The reported mitral valve injury (tissue damage) appears to be related to the challenging patient morphology/pathology (fibrotic leaflets, thin medial and lateral part of mitral valve) and procedural circumstances (maneuvers related to capturing the leaflets).The reported unchanged mr appears to be a result of procedural conditions as the device was removed from the anatomy, mr went back to initial grade 4.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to design, manufacturing, or labeling of the device.
|