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

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: COOK INC UNKNOWN DTK FILTER, INTRAVASCULAR, CARDIOVASCULAR

  • 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
 

COOK INC UNKNOWN DTK FILTER, INTRAVASCULAR, CARDIOVASCULAR Back to Search Results
Catalog Number UNKNOWN
Device Problems Difficult to Remove (1528); Structural Problem (2506); Device Tipped Over (2589)
Patient Problems Vessel Or Plaque, Device Embedded In (1204); Perforation of Vessels (2135)
Event Type  Injury  
Manufacturer Narrative

Occupation: non-healthcare professional. Investigation: the reported allegations have been investigated based on the information provided to date. The following allegations have been investigated: vena cava perforation, embedment, inability to retrieve, and tilt. 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. Filter tilt has been reported. Potential causes may include filter placement in ivcs with diameters larger than those specified in these instructions for use; improper deployment; manipulations near an implanted filter (e. G. , a surgical or endovascular procedure in the vicinity of a filter); and (or) a failed retrieval attempt. Excessive filter tilt may contribute to difficult or failed retrieval; vena cava wall penetration/perforation; and (or) result in loss of filter efficiency. Potential adverse events that may occur include, but are not limited to, the following: unacceptable filter tilt. Catalog and lot numbers 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. 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 becomes available.

 
Event Description

The following information is alleged: the patient received a gunther tulip on (b)(6) 2007. Approximately 10 years and 5 months later, it was noted that multiple struts of the inferior vena cava (ivc) filter had perforated the vena cava. There was an attempt to remove the filter approximately 3 days after discovering the vena cava perforation, but it failed as the filter had embedded itself in the vein. Approximately 11 months later, the filter was noted to be tilted. A scan that was performed approximately 13 years after the patient received the filter implant displayed a 30-degree filter tilt as well as multiple struts perforating the vena cava. Hospital and medical records have been requested, but not yet provided.

 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand NameUNKNOWN
Type of DeviceDTK FILTER, INTRAVASCULAR, CARDIOVASCULAR
Manufacturer (Section D)
COOK INC
750 daniels way
bloomington IN 47404
Manufacturer (Section G)
COOK INC
750 daniels way
bloomington IN 47404
Manufacturer Contact
larry pool
750 daniels way
bloomington, IN 47404
8128294891
MDR Report Key10352886
MDR Text Key201584252
Report Number1820334-2020-01404
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code DTK
Combination Product (Y/N)N
Reporter Country CodeUS
Number of Events Reported1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type CONSUMER
Reporter Occupation
Type of Report Initial
Report Date 07/31/2020
1 Device Was Involved in the Event
1 Patient Was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received07/31/2020
Is This An Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is This A Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator HEALTH PROFESSIONAL
Device Catalogue NumberUNKNOWN
Device LOT NumberUNKNOWN
Was Device Available For Evaluation? No
Is The Reporter A Health Professional?
Was the Report Sent to FDA?
Event Location No Information
Date Manufacturer Received07/22/2020
Was Device Evaluated By Manufacturer? Device Not Returned To Manufacturer
Is The Device Single Use? Yes
Is this a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial

Patient TREATMENT DATA
Date Received: 07/31/2020 Patient Sequence Number: 1
-
-