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 seven months later, computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis revealed the filter was in good position although several filter legs were protruded outside of the lumen of the inferior vena cava with clot on it and below it.Poor protruded into the lumbar vein.The patient reportedly experienced persistent abdominal pain.After one month, right jugular vein was punctured with a micro-puncture set successfully.A straight flush catheter was placed into the left iliac vein.Venography showed no thrombus within the filter.Consequently, the catheter was exchanged for the cone recovery device and the filter retrieved without difficulty.Therefore, the investigation is confirmed for alleged perforation of the inferior vena cava.Additionally, it can be confirmed that the patient experienced thrombus above the filter post deployment.However, the relationship to the filter is unknown.Based on 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.
|
It was reported through the litigation process that a vena cava filter was placed in a patient after being diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism prophylaxis.Approximately eight years and five months later, post filter deployment, it was alleged that the filter struts perforated.The device has been removed percutaneously.The patient reportedly experienced abdominal pain and thrombus above the filter.However, the current status of the patient is unknown.
|