Event date: estimated date.The udi is unknown because the part number and lot number were not provided.(b)(4).The device was not returned for analysis and a review of the lot history record could not be performed as the part and lot information regarding the complaint device was not provided.A cause for the reported patient effect of atrial perforation could not be determined.The reported patient effect of atrial perforation is listed in the mitraclip system instructions for use, and is a known possible complication associated with mitraclip procedures.The reported additional therapy/non-surgical treatment and hospitalization were results of case-specific circumstances.It should also be noted that the mitraclip ifu states: ¿do not use mitraclip outside of the labeled indication¿.Since mitraclip was used for a tricuspid valve procedure, this is considered as an off-label use of the device.However, it could not be determined if using the mitraclip on the tricuspid valve caused or contributed to the reported patient effects.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling.Article titled, " comparison of transcatheter tricuspid valverepair using the mitraclip ntr and xtr systems".The additional mitraclip referenced is filed under a separate medwatch report number.
|
This is filed to report atrial perforation, medical intervention, heart failure, and prolonged hospitalization.It was reported in an article review that this was a mitraclip procedure to treat tricuspid regurgitation (tr).A steerable guide catheter (sgc) was advanced to the tricuspid valve, with an xtr clip delivery system (cds) for off label use.The clip was deployed.A 30-day follow-up revealed that the patient was re-admitted 18 days post clip-implantation for heart failure.Additionally, imaging showed evidence of an atrial perforation which was treated with a closure device.No additional information was provided.
|