Reporter occupation : senior counsel litigation.As reported, the patient underwent placement of a trapease inferior vena cava (ivc) filter.The indication for filter placement is not available.The filter subsequently malfunctioned and caused injury and damages to the patient including, but not limited to, perforation of the ivc filter struts.The filter remains implanted; thus, unavailable for analysis.The product was not returned for analysis and the sterile lot number has not been provided; therefore, no device analysis nor device history record review could be performed.The trapease vena cava filter is indicated for use in the prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism (pe) via percutaneous placement in the vena cava for patients in which anticoagulants are contraindicated, anticoagulant therapy for thromboembolic disease has failed, emergency treatment following massive pulmonary embolism where anticipated benefits of conventional therapy are reduced or for chronic, recurrent pulmonary embolism where anticoagulant therapy has failed, or is contraindicated.The purpose of a vena cava filter is to catch thrombus from the lower extremities as it travels along normal blood flow patterns up towards the heart.It was reported that there was perforation of the ivc; however, a clinical conclusion could not be determined as to the cause of the event.A review of the instructions for use notes vessel damage such as intimal tears and perforation as procedural complications related it ivc filters.Ivc perforation from removable filters is relatively common, and directly related to how long the filter has been in place.Studies have noted a greater than 80% perforation rate overall, with all filters imaged after 71 days from implantation revealing some level of perforation.Clinical factors that may have influenced the event include patient, pharmacological and lesion characteristics.Without procedural films or images for review the reported event(s) could not be confirmed.Given the limited information available for review at this time, there is nothing to suggest that the reported events are related to the design and manufacturing process of the device; therefore, no corrective action will be taken.Should additional information become available, the file will be updated accordingly.
|
As reported by the legal brief, the patient underwent placement of a trapease vena cava filter.The filter subsequently malfunctioned and caused injury and damages to the patient including, but not limited to, perforation of the ivc filter struts.As a direct and proximate result of these malfunctions, the patient suffered life threatening injuries and damages and required medical care and treatment.As a further proximate result, the patient has suffered and will continue to suffer significant medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other damages.
|