Manufacturing review: a lot history review was performed.This is the only complaint to date for this lot number.Therefore, a device history record review is not required.Investigation summary: the device was not returned for evaluation.Medical records were provided and reviewed.Approximately four years later, computed tomography of the abdomen without contrast revealed the filter was placed in the mid abdominal inferior vena cava with its superior tip at the l2 vertebral level.Six filter legs appeared to be extraluminal extension beyond the inferior vena cava but may still be intraluminal.All five of the filter legs appeared to be extended greater than 3 mm beyond the wall of the inferior vena cava with no evidence of hemorrhage.The inferior vena cava at and below the level of the filter as well as the bilateral iliac veins appear chronically thrombosed, scarred likely caused by, worsened by, otherwise affected by the presence of the filter.Therefore, the investigation is confirmed for alleged perforation of the inferior vena cava.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.(expiry date: 07/2013).
|
It was reported through the litigation process that a vena cava filter was placed in a patient after being diagnosed with pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.Approximately four years, post filter deployment, it was alleged that the filter struts perforated.The device has not been removed and there were no reported attempts made to retrieve the filter.The patient was diagnosed with thrombosis; however, the current status of the patient is unknown.
|