|
As reported, a patient underwent placement of a trapease inferior vena cava (ivc) filter.The indication for filter placement is not available.The filter subsequently malfunctioned including fracture of one or more filter struts, perforation of filter struts beyond the wall of the inferior vena cava (ivc) and into surrounding organs/tissues, migration, embedment, thrombosis/embolism, caval thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis (dvt), stenosis, device unable to be completely removed and pain post implant.The filter remains implanted; thus, unavailable for analysis.The product was not returned for analysis and the sterile lot number has not been provided; therefore, no device analysis nor device history record review could be performed.The trapease vena cava filter is indicated for use in the prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism (pe) via percutaneous placement in the vena cava for patients in which anticoagulants are contraindicated, anticoagulant therapy for thromboembolic disease has failed, emergency treatment following massive pulmonary embolism where anticipated benefits of conventional therapy are reduced or for chronic, recurrent pulmonary embolism where anticoagulant therapy has failed, or is contraindicated.The purpose of a vena cava filter is to catch thrombus from the lower extremities as it travels along normal blood flow patterns up towards the heart.Blood clots, thrombosis and occlusive thrombosis within the filter and vasculature and emboli do not represent a device malfunction.Blood clots that develop in the veins of the leg or pelvis, may be related to a condition called dvt.A dvt occurs when a blood clot forms in a deep vein and is most common in the deep veins of the lower leg (calf) and can spread up to the veins in the thigh.Large thrombus within the vena cava or lower extremities may impede perfusion and cause venous insufficiency.Placement of a vena cava filter is not a cure for dvt, nor does it prevent the formation of dvt or other clots (thrombosis).The instructions for use (ifu) states filter fracture with perforation is a potential complication of vena cava filters.Anatomic locations that create concentrated stress points from filter deformation (for example, deployment at apex of scoliosis, overlapping of either of the renal ostia, or placement adjacent to a vertebral osteophyte) may contribute to fracture of a particular filter strut.It was reported that there was perforation of the ivc and organs; however, a clinical conclusion could not be determined as to the cause of the event.A review of the instructions for use notes vessel damage such as intimal tears and perforation as procedural complications related it ivc filters.Inferior vena cava (ivc) filter migration is a known potential adverse event associated with all ivc filter implants and is listed in the instruction for use (ifu) as such.Possible causes for filter migration include mega cava, wire entrapment during central venous catheter placement, ¿sail¿ effect (cranial migration) of large clot burden within the filter, mechanical device failure, and operator error.Physiologic causes of migration may result from temporary dysmorphism of the inferior vena cava including bending, coughing or valsalva maneuvers resulting in dislodgment of the filter.Some studies suggest that strenuous physical activity and increased intra-abdominal pressure can lead to migration of ivc filters.The predominant concern for embedding with in the wall of the ivc is the development of endothelialization.Endothelialization is the healing of the inner surfaces of vessels or grafts by endothelial cells.This is the normal process whereby the body heals and recovers from invasive procedures.Endothelialization has been shown to occur in as short a period as 12 days.Stenosis of the ivc is associated with all ivc filter products and does not represent a device malfunction.A protective inferior vena cava (ivc) filter may later be incorporated into a chronic post-thrombotic ilio-caval obstruction (occlusive, requiring recanalization, or nonocclusive).Obstruction of varying types of ivc filters may occur due to primary thrombosis of the filter or capture of large emboli.Permanent ivc filters have been reported to obstruct in up to 20% of patients.Pain does not represent a device malfunction and may be related to underlying patient related issues.Clinical factors that may have influenced the event include patient, pharmacological and lesion characteristics.Without procedural films or images for review the reported event(s) could not be confirmed.Given the limited information available for review at this time, there is nothing to suggest that the reported events are related to the design and manufacturing process of the device; therefore, no corrective action will be taken.Should additional information become available, the file will be updated accordingly.
|
|
As reported in the legal brief, a patient underwent placement of a trapease vena cava filter.The filter subsequently malfunctioned and caused injury and damage to the patient, including, but not limited to fracture of one or more filter struts, perforation of filter struts beyond the wall of the inferior vena cava (ivc) and into surrounding organs/tissues, migration, embedment, thrombosis/embolism, caval thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis (dvt), stenosis, device unable to be completely removed and pain post implant.As a direct and proximate result of these malfunctions, the patient suffered life-threatening injuries and damages and required extensive medical care and treatment.As a further proximate result, the patient has suffered and will continue to suffer significant medical expenses, pain and suffering and other damages.
|
