MAUDE Adverse Event Report: COOK INC GUNTHER TULIP FEMORAL VENA CAVA FILTER SET; DTK FILTER, INTRAVASCULAR, CARDIOVASCULAR

Catalog Number IGTCFS-65-FEM

Device Problems Difficult to Remove (1528); Inadequate Filtration Process (2308); Obstruction of Flow (2423); Structural Problem (2506)

Patient Problems Pulmonary Embolism (1498); Pain (1994); Perforation of Vessels (2135); Stenosis (2263); Device Embedded In Tissue or Plaque (3165); Thrombosis/Thrombus (4440)

Event Type  Injury  

Manufacturer Narrative

Reporter occupation: non-healthcare professional.Investigation: the following allegations have been investigated: vena cava perforation, complex retrieval.The reported allegations have been investigated based on the information provided to date.Filter interacts with ivc wall, e.G.Penetration/perforation/embedment.This may be either symptomatic or asymptomatic.Potential causes may include improper deployment; and (or) excessive force or manipulations near an in-situ filter (e.G., a surgical or endovascular procedure in the vicinity of a filter).Potential adverse events that may occur include, but are not limited to, the following: trauma to adjacent structures, vascular trauma, vena cava perforation, vena cava penetration.Physician practice guidelines and published guidance from regulatory agencies recommend that patients with indwelling filters undergo routine follow-up.The risks/benefits of filter retrieval should be considered for each patient during follow-up.Once protection from pe is no longer necessary, filter retrieval should be considered.Filter retrieval should be attempted when feasible and clinically indicated.Filter retrieval is a patient-specific, clinically complex decision; the decision to remove a filter should be based on each patient¿s individual risk/benefit profile (e.G., a patient¿s continued need for protection from pe compared to their experience with and (or) ongoing risk of experiencing filter-related complications).For all retrievable ivc filters, retrieval becomes more challenging with time, and this is commonly due to encapsulation of the filter legs or hook (in a tilted filter) by tissue ingrowth.The filter is designed to be retrieved with the günther tulip vena cava filter retrieval set.It may also be retrieved with the cloversnare® vascular retriever.Cook has not performed testing to evaluate the safety or effectiveness of filter retrieval using other retrieval systems or techniques.The published clinical literature includes descriptions of alternative techniques for filter retrieval; use of these techniques varies according to physician experience, patient anatomy, and filter position.The safety or effectiveness of these alternative retrieval techniques has not been established.Specific for ¿embedded¿ a filter that is embedded in the wall of the ivc may be difficult to retrieve.For all retrievable ivc filters, retrieval becomes more challenging with time, and this is commonly due to encapsulation of the filter legs or hook (in a tilted filter) by tissue ingrowth.Catalog number and lot number are unknown.The alleged tulip is manufactured and inspected according to controls.No evidence to suggest that this device was not manufactured according to specifications and nothing indicates that the filter did not perform as intended, e.G.Intended for the prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism (pe) via placement in the vena cava.Cook will reopen its investigation if further information is received warranting supplementation in accordance with 21 c.F.R.803.56.This report includes information known at this time.A follow-up medwatch report will be submitted if additional relevant information becomes available.

Event Description

The following information is alleged: the patient received a gunther tulip inferior vena cava (ivc) filter on (b)(6) 2009.Approximately 5 years and 2 months later, it was noted the patient's ivc filter perforated the ivc and were external to the vena cava, with one prong resting on the aorta.Then approximately 1 month later, perforation was again noted during a complex filter retrieval, which required balloon venoplasty.Hospital and medical records have been requested, but not yet provided.

Event Description

No additional event information has been received since the last medwatch submission.

Manufacturer Narrative

Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unavailable, or unchanged.Investigation: the following allegations have been investigated: vena cava perforation, complex retrieval.Investigation is reopened due to additional information provided.The reported allegations have been further investigated based on the information provided to date.Filter interacts with ivc wall, e.G.Penetration/perforation/embedment.This may be either symptomatic or asymptomatic.Potential causes may include improper deployment; and (or) excessive force or manipulations near an in-situ filter (e.G., a surgical or endovascular procedure in the vicinity of a filter).Potential adverse events that may occur include, but are not limited to, the following: trauma to adjacent structures, vascular trauma, vena cava perforation, vena cava penetration.Physician practice guidelines and published guidance from regulatory agencies recommend that patients with indwelling filters undergo routine follow-up.The risks/benefits of filter retrieval should be considered for each patient during follow-up.Once protection from pe is no longer necessary, filter retrieval should be considered.Filter retrieval should be attempted when feasible and clinically indicated.Filter retrieval is a patient-specific, clinically complex decision; the decision to remove a filter should be based on each patient¿s individual risk/benefit profile (e.G., a patient¿s continued need for protection from pe compared to their experience with and (or) ongoing risk of experiencing filter-related complications).For all retrievable ivc filters, retrieval becomes more challenging with time, and this is commonly due to encapsulation of the filter legs or hook (in a tilted filter) by tissue ingrowth.The filter is designed to be retrieved with the günther tulip vena cava filter retrieval set.It may also be retrieved with the cloversnare® vascular retriever.Cook has not performed testing to evaluate the safety or effectiveness of filter retrieval using other retrieval systems or techniques.The published clinical literature includes descriptions of alternative techniques for filter retrieval; use of these techniques varies according to physician experience, patient anatomy, and filter position.The safety or effectiveness of these alternative retrieval techniques has not been established.Specific for ¿embedded¿ a filter that is embedded in the wall of the ivc may be difficult to retrieve.For all retrievable ivc filters, retrieval becomes more challenging with time, and this is commonly due to encapsulation of the filter legs or hook (in a tilted filter) by tissue ingrowth.A total of 20 devices were manufactured in the reported lot.To date, no other complaints have been reported against the lot.The associated work order was reviewed.No related/relevant notes were documented.The device is manufactured and inspected according to controls.No evidence to suggest that this device was not manufactured according to specifications and nothing indicates that the filter did not perform as intended, e.G.Intended for the prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism (pe) via placement in the vena cava.Cook will reopen its investigation if further information is received warranting supplementation in accordance with 21 c.F.R.803.56.This report includes information known at this time.A follow-up medwatch report will be submitted if additional relevant information becomes available.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803.This report is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement made in it is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned, that a death or serious injury occurred, or that any cook device caused or contributed to or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.

Manufacturer Narrative

The following allegations have been investigated: pulmonary embolism, embedment, dvt, stenosis, pain, limited mobility.Investigation is reopened due to additional information provided.The reported allegations have been further investigated based on the information provided to date.New pe as a reported complication, is a known risk in relation to filter implant and is well documented in the clinical literature and in clinical practice guidelines.This is supported by the clinical evidence report established to assess available clinical data to identify and evaluate the clinical safety and performance of the cook vena cava filters.Potential adverse events that may occur include, but are not limited to, the following: pulmonary embolism.The additional information regarding embedment does not change the previous investigation results for vena cava perforation.Ivc occlusion/ thrombosis, new dvt, ivc stenosis as a reported complication, is a known risk in relation to filter implant and is well documented in the clinical literature and in clinical practice guidelines.This is supported by the clinical evidence report established to assess available clinical data to identify and evaluate the clinical safety and performance of the cook vena cava filters.Potential adverse events that may occur include, but are not limited to, the following: vena cava occlusion or thrombosis, vena cava stenosis, deep vein thrombosis.Unknown if the reported pain and limited mobility are directly related to the filter and unable to identify a corresponding failure mode at this point in time.20 devices in lot.No relevant notes on work order.The product is manufactured and inspected according to specifications.No evidence to suggest that this device was not manufactured according to specifications and nothing indicates that the filter did not perform as intended, e.G.Intended for the prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism (pe) via placement in the vena cava.Cook will reopen its investigation if further information is received warranting supplementation in accordance with 21 c.F.R.803.56.This report includes information known at this time.A follow-up medwatch report will be submitted if additional relevant information becomes available.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803.This report is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement made in it is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned, that a death or serious injury occurred, or that any cook device caused or contributed to or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.

Event Description

The patient received an implant on (b)(6) 2009 via the right common femoral vein due to deep vein thrombosis (dvt).The patient alleges limited mobility, dvt, pulmonary embolism, and pain.Successful complex filter removal on (b)(6) 2014 due to perforation of the vena cava.(b)(6) 2014, per a report from computed tomography; ¿impression: one of the 4 prongs of the ivc filter external to the inferior vena cava rests on top of but does not penetrate the aorta.¿ (b)(6) 2014, per a report from retrieval report (successful); ¿3.Inferior vena cavagram demonstrates a patent ivc with no acute thrombus.There is evidence of mild right and left filter leg penetration.4.Fluoroscopy images show complex ivc filter removal.Images show the rigid forceps grasping the filter hook and the trilobed snare subsequently engaged on the filter hook.There is of the 12 french sheath around the filter apex.Images obtained during laser tissue ablation demonstrate progressive sheathing of the filter into the 12 french spectranetics glidelight laser sheath.5.Post retrieval inferior vena cavagram demonstrates a patent ivc with focal area of mild stenosis at the level of prior filter implantation at l3.7.Post: venoplasty completion inferior vena cavagram demonstrates a patent ivc with improvement in mild stenosis.There is no acute thrombus and no acute injury.Impression: 1.Successful complex retrieval of an embedded gunther tulip ivc filter.¿.

• Brand Name: GUNTHER TULIP FEMORAL VENA CAVA FILTER SET
• Type of Device: DTK FILTER, INTRAVASCULAR, CARDIOVASCULAR
• Manufacturer (Section D): COOK INC; 750 daniels way; bloomington IN 47404
• MDR Report Key: 11738324
• MDR Text Key: 263975447
• Report Number: 1820334-2021-01243
• Device Sequence Number: 1
• Product Code: DTK
• Combination Product (y/n): N
• PMA/PMN Number: K043509
• Number of Events Reported: 1
• Summary Report (Y/N): N
• Report Source: Manufacturer
• Source Type: consumer,other
• Type of Report: Initial,Followup,Followup
• Report Date: 06/16/2021

1 Device was Involved in the Event

1 Patient was Involved in the Event

• Is this an Adverse Event Report?: Yes
• Is this a Product Problem Report?: Yes
• Device Operator: Health Professional
• Device Expiration Date: 06/01/2012
• Device Catalogue Number: IGTCFS-65-FEM
• Device Lot Number: 2347370
• Was Device Available for Evaluation?: No
• Initial Date Manufacturer Received: 04/19/2021
• Initial Date FDA Received: 04/28/2021
• Supplement Dates Manufacturer Received: 05/19/2021; 05/27/2021
• Supplement Dates FDA Received: 05/26/2021; 06/16/2021
• Is This a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device?: No
• Patient Sequence Number: 1
• Patient Outcome(s): Life Threatening
• Patient Weight: 150