Manufacturing review: a 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 provided and reviewed.Approximately eleven years and eleven months later, the patient presented for filter removal.Real-time ultrasound guidance was used to puncture the right internal jugular vein and the tract was dilated.A 16 fr sheath was placed.The filter was presented with two fractured fragments.Intravascular fractured limb was removed, unsuccessful removal of extravascular limb and the filter body was removed by using endobronchial forceps in the jaws of life technique.Post cavogram demonstrates no thrombus in the inferior vena cava.Therefore, the investigation is confirmed for alleged filter limb detachment.However, the investigation is inconclusive for alleged perforation of the inferior vena cava (ivc), filter migration, and retrieval difficulties.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.(device: (b)(4)).
|
It was reported through the litigation process that a vena cava filter was placed in a patient in conjunction with trauma situation/motor vehicle accident.Approximately eleven years and eleven months post filter deployment, it was alleged that the entire filter migrated to heart, struts detached and perforated into organs.The device was removed percutaneously after an attempted but unsuccessful percutaneous removal procedure.Reportedly the detached strut retained in extravascular to the inferior vena cava.The current status of the patient is unknown.
|