|
(b)(4).The device remains implanted and is not available for analysis.(b)(4).Further information was requested but was not available.According to the gore® excluder® aaa endoprosthesis instructions for use (ifu), adverse events that may occur and / or require intervention include but are not limited to endoleak and aneurysm enlargement.Additionally, per ifu, intervention or conversion to standard open surgical repair following initial endovascular repair should be considered for patients experiencing enlarging aneurysms and / or persistent endoleak.Users are made aware of the risks associated with type ii endoleaks in the ifu and are instructed to consider the risks and benefits discussed in the ifu for each patient before using the devices.Please note as the date when the endoleaks and aneurysm enlargement were determined is unknown, (b)(6) 2016- embolization procedure date will be used as an event date.Please note that the physician/facility contact information is: (b)(6).
|
|
On (b)(6) 2014, the patient was implanted with a gore® excluder® aaa endoprosthesis for an abdominal aortic aneurysm.Reportedly, after procedure images confirmed that there was no complications or issues.The patient tolerated the procedure.On an unknown date, during a control ct scan, it was observed that the aneurysmatic sac had increased (unknown amount).Also, a type ii endoleak was determined.On (b)(6) 2016, the endoleak was embolized.On an unknown date, almost 3 years after embolization procedure, the patient presented with an abdominal pain.During another image exam, it was noted that the aneurysm had increased in size (unknown amount) and the patient was submitted to another procedure.Reportedly, on (b)(6) 2019, an aortic cuff was implanted.On an unknown date in 2020, the patient was hospitalized due to a strong abdominal pain.It was reported that the aneurysm increased too much, and the patient underwent endovascular procedure using a medtronic device (proximal reinforcement through anchors).As there was no sign of the aneurysm being reduced, the physician did not believe that there was a possibility of type i , type ii or type iii endoleaks.The physician suspected that there is a possibility of a type iv endoleak.Further information was requested but was not available.
|