A review of the available information was performed.Journal article references the case of a 51-year-old female who had an embolic stroke at five months post-implant with an aortic on-x mechanical valve, a few days after her inr was recorded to be 1.9.This is after ce mark approval for inr 1.5 ¿ 2.0, which was presumed to be based upon the interim results of the proact study [puskas 2014].The point of the article is not this specific event, but rather an example of the authors¿ perceived lack of transparency in medical device approvals in the european union.Consequently, this is all the information we have on this event and attempts to contact the lead author for details concerning it have not been returned.Without additional details, we can only state that the patient¿s stroke may have been valve related, but that is not conclusive as we do not know the inr history preceding the event (other than the single inr reading).We also do not know if the proposed thromboembolism (te) originated with the valve.With the lack of background information, we can only place this in the context of the historical record.Thromboembolism is a known potential complication occurring at a historical rate of 3.0 %/patient-year [iso 5840:2005(e)].It is recognized as a potential adverse event for the on-x valve [ifu].The puskas article referenced above for the proact study interim results indicated an all te rate (neurological and peripheral) of 2.67 %/patient-year for the treatment group (inr 1.5 ¿ 2.0) and 1.59 %/patient-year for the control group (inr 2.0 ¿ 3.0).The difference was not statistically different (p=0.164) and both were below the iso objective performance criteria.It is probable that a thromboembolism induced the neurologic stroke.Although valve-relatedness is implied, the information available from this article is insufficient to determine with certainty what, if any, relationship the stroke had to do with the valve.No further action recommended.This report is being submitted as required by federal regulations and does not constitute an admission that the device caused or contributed to the reported event.Furthermore, this report reflects the event as alleged by the complainant and does not imply that the information reported to cryolife is accurate or has been confirmed by cryolife.
|