|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown or unavailable.Occupation: non-healthcare professional.Investigation: it has not been possible to further investigate or evaluate this alleged event based on the limited information and/or no device failure provided to date.Catalog number and lot number are unknown, however, the alleged tulip is manufactured and inspected according to specifications.No evidence to suggest that this device was not manufactured according to specifications and nothing indicates that the filter did not perform as intended, e.G.Intended for the prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism (pe) via placement in the vena cava.This report includes information known at this time.A follow-up medwatch report will be submitted if additional relevant information becomes available.
|
|
Additional information: investigation.The following allegations have been investigated: vena cava (vc) perforation, inability to retrieve, pain, physical limitations.Investigation is reopened due to additional information provided.The reported allegations have been further investigated based on the information provided to date.Filter interacts with ivc wall, e.G.Penetration/perforation/embedment.This may be either symptomatic or asymptomatic.Potential causes may include improper deployment; and (or) excessive force or manipulations near an in-situ filter (e.G., a surgical or endovascular procedure in the vicinity of a filter).Potential adverse events that may occur include, but are not limited to, the following: trauma to adjacent structures, vascular trauma, vena cava perforation, vena cava penetration.Physician practice guidelines and published guidance from regulatory agencies recommend that patients with indwelling filters undergo routine follow-up.The risks/benefits of filter retrieval should be considered for each patient during follow-up.Once protection from pe is no longer necessary, filter retrieval should be considered.Filter retrieval should be attempted when feasible and clinically indicated.Filter retrieval is a patient-specific, clinically complex decision; the decision to remove a filter should be based on each patient¿s individual risk/benefit profile (e.G., a patient¿s continued need for protection from pe compared to their experience with and (or) ongoing risk of experiencing filter-related complications).For all retrievable ivc filters, retrieval becomes more challenging with time, and this is commonly due to encapsulation of the filter legs or hook (in a tilted filter) by tissue ingrowth.The filter is designed to be retrieved with the günther tulip vena cava filter retrieval set.It may also be retrieved with the cloversnare® vascular retriever.Cook has not performed testing to evaluate the safety or effectiveness of filter retrieval using other retrieval systems or techniques.The published clinical literature includes descriptions of alternative techniques for filter retrieval; use of these techniques varies according to physician experience, patient anatomy, and filter position.The safety or effectiveness of these alternative retrieval techniques has not been established.Specific for ¿embedded¿ a filter that is embedded in the wall of the ivc may be difficult to retrieve.For all retrievable ivc filters, retrieval becomes more challenging with time, and this is commonly due to encapsulation of the filter legs or hook (in a tilted filter) by tissue ingrowth.Unknown if the reported pain and physical limitations are directly related to the filter and unable to identify a corresponding failure mode at this point in time.A total of 10 devices were manufactured in the reported lot.To date, one other complaints have been reported against the lot.The associated work order was reviewed.No related/relevant notes were documented.The device is manufactured and inspected according to current controls.No evidence to suggest that this device was not manufactured according to specifications and nothing indicates that the filter did not perform as intended, e.G.Intended for the prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism (pe) via placement in the vena cava.Cook will reopen its investigation if further information is received warranting supplementation in accordance with 21 c.F.R.803.56.This report includes information known at this time.A follow-up medwatch report will be submitted if additional relevant information become available.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803.This report is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement made in it is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned, that a death or serious injury occurred, or that any cook device caused or contributed to, or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|
|
Patient allegedly received an implant on 1(b)(6) 2004 via the right common femoral vein due to retroperitoneal hematoma and deep vein thrombosis (dvt).Patient is alleging vena cava perforation, inability to retrieve.Patient further alleges pain, physical limitations.Per the (b)(6) 2017, report from computerized tomography (ct): "the ivc filter is located with its feet at the l4-5 level.The filter is intact.All 4 feet extend beyond the border of the ivc, but there is no stranding or abnormal density around the ivc.The filter is oriented parallel to the ivc".
|
