• Decrease font size
  • Return font size to normal
  • Increase font size
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES EDWARDS COMMANDER DELIVERY SYSTEM; AORTIC VALVE, PROSTHESIS, PERCUTANEOUSLY DELIVERED

  • Print
  • Share
  • E-mail
-
Super Search Devices@FDA
510(k) | DeNovo | Registration & Listing | Adverse Events | Recalls | PMA | HDE | Classification | Standards
CFR Title 21 | Radiation-Emitting Products | X-Ray Assembler | Medsun Reports | CLIA | TPLC
 

EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES EDWARDS COMMANDER DELIVERY SYSTEM; AORTIC VALVE, PROSTHESIS, PERCUTANEOUSLY DELIVERED Back to Search Results
Model Number 9600LDS29A
Device Problems Difficult or Delayed Positioning (1157); Failure to Align (2522); Material Split, Cut or Torn (4008); Activation Problem (4042)
Patient Problems Injury (2348); No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient (2692)
Event Date 03/09/2020
Event Type  Injury  
Manufacturer Narrative
This is one of two manufacturer reports being submitted for this case.  please reference related manufacturer report no: 2015691-2020-11286.Investigation is ongoing.
 
Event Description
As reported, during a carotid tavr procedure with a 29mm sapien 3 valve in the aortic position, a second valve was not fully deployed due to torque in the system which caused a tear in the balloon.  the balloon became misaligned under the valve.  the patient was taken to the or for open heart surgery and both valves were explanted.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
The delivery system was not returned to edwards lifesciences for evaluation.  in addition, no relevant imagery was provided for review.  due to unavailability of device, engineering was unable to perform any visual, functional, or dimensional analysis.As a result, the presence of a manufacturing non-conformance was unable to be confirmed.During manufacturing, all inspections are conducted on 100% of units, except in the case of product verification (pv) testing, where the tested units are chosen on a sampling basis.  the balloons are 100% visually and dimensionally inspected for any defects.  in addition, pv testing was performed and all passed specification for lot release.  these inspections during the manufacturing process support that it is unlikely a manufacturing non-conformance contributed to the reported complaint.A device history review (dhr) and a lot history review could not be performed as work order information was not provided.  the occurrence rate did not exceed the march 2020 control limit for the trend categories.  a review of the risk management documentation was performed and the reported event is an anticipated risk of the transcatheter heart valve procedure, additional assessment of the failure mode is not required at this time.The complaints for delivery system difficulty with valve alignment and balloon leakage were unable to be confirmed as neither the complaint device nor procedural imagery was returned.No manufacturing non-conformance could be determined without device photos and/or device evaluation.A review of manufacturing mitigations supports that the delivery system has proper inspections in place to detect issues related to the complaint events.No ifu/training manual deficiencies were found.Per report, ¿a second valve was attempted and it was unable to fully deploy due to torque in the system which caused a tear in the balloon.¿ torque applied to the proximal end of the balloon catheter can result in high forces/tension in the system, leading to valve alignment issues.As a result, the balloon may have become damaged when exposed to high forces/tension in the balloon.Additional information regarding the degree of tortuosity was not provided.However, as the approach in this case was transcarotid, it is possible that valve alignment was performed in a non-straight section of the vasculature, which can result in valve diving further introducing tension into the system.While a definitive root cause is unable to be determined, available information suggests that procedural factors (valve alignment in non-straight section; excessive manipulation) may have contributed to the complaint events.Since no product non-conformances or ifu/training deficiencies were identified during the evaluation and the control limit did not exceeded the applicable trend categories, product risk assessment escalations, and corrective/preventative actions are not required.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
Corrected data: f10, h6.Reference capa-20-00141.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
EDWARDS COMMANDER DELIVERY SYSTEM
Type of Device
AORTIC VALVE, PROSTHESIS, PERCUTANEOUSLY DELIVERED
Manufacturer (Section D)
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES
1 edwards way
irvine CA 92614
MDR Report Key9917107
MDR Text Key190935270
Report Number2015691-2020-11288
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code NPT
Combination Product (y/n)N
PMA/PMN Number
P140031
Number of Events Reported1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type company representative,health
Remedial Action Other
Type of Report Initial,Followup,Followup
Report Date 03/09/2020
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Is this an Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is this a Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator Health Professional
Device Model Number9600LDS29A
Was Device Available for Evaluation? No
Initial Date Manufacturer Received 03/09/2020
Initial Date FDA Received04/02/2020
Supplement Dates Manufacturer Received05/10/2020
07/23/2020
Supplement Dates FDA Received05/13/2020
01/05/2021
Is This a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Patient Sequence Number1
Patient Outcome(s) Required Intervention;
Patient Age80 YR
-
-