Manufacturing review: the device history record review could not be performed as the lot number is unknown.Investigation summary: the device was not returned for evaluation.Medical records were not provided.The investigation is inconclusive as no objective evidence has been provided to confirm any alleged deficiency with the filter.Based upon the available information, the definitive root cause is unknown.Labeling review: a review of product labeling documents (e.G.Procedural instructions, indications, warnings, precautions, cautions, possible complications, contraindications, and unit label) showed that the product labeling is adequate.
|
Manufacturing review: the device history records have been reviewed with special attention to the raw materials, subassemblies, manufacturing process, and quality control testing.This lot met all release criteria.There was nothing found to indicate there was a manufacturing related cause for this event.Investigation summary: the device was not returned for evaluation.Medical records were provided and reviewed.Approximately five years post filter deployment, computed tomography revealed the apex of the filter appeared to be inferior to the confluence of the right and left renal veins.However, more inferiorly multiple struts associated with the filter became extra luminal, including anteriorly, laterally and posteriorly.However, along the medial aspect a more superior metallic strut appeared to involve the wall of the abdominal aorta.Also there was a second metallic strut that extended more inferiorly and laterally that appeared to reside within the abdominal aortic lumen just proximal to the bifurcation.Therefore, the investigation is confirmed for perforation of the inferior vena cava (ivc).However, the investigation is inconclusive for filter tilt.Based upon the available information, the definitive root cause is unknown.Labeling review: a review of product labeling documents (e.G.Procedural instructions, indications, warnings, precautions, cautions, possible complications, contraindications, and unit label) showed that the product labeling is adequate.Event (expiry date: 07/2014),date rec¿d by mfr,pma/510k.Brand name,initial reporter name and address:(complainant mail address),(device, method, result).
|
It was reported through the litigation process that a vena cava filter was placed in a patient after being diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism.At some time post filter deployment, it was alleged that the filter tilted and struts perforated the vena cava wall, aorta and the abdominal aortic lumen.The device has not been removed and there were no reported attempts made to retrieve the filter.The patient reportedly expired.
|