|
The valve was returned to the manufacturer for investigation.The returned prosthesis was returned in a plastic bag with very little storage liquid.After decontamination with formalin treatment, the valve was subject to the visual inspection according to the procedure at the time of manufacture and release.However, due to the suboptimal state of return, it is not possible to make a conclusive judgment on the returned prosthesis.The pericardial tissue appears altered due to low storage fluid and presence of organic debris.The height of each leaflet has been verified and it resulted in conformity.In order to allow a preliminary evaluation of the functional behavior, a simulation of collapsing, deployment and ballooning phases was performed in order to attempt to replicate the reported event.The collapsing procedure performed with the returned valve and a demo accessory kit was completed with no issue.The simulation of the valve deployment was repeated for 3 different sizes of silicon aortic roots: #27, and #25, as the correct size of reference, and #23, as additional and conservative verification.No problems were encountered during the deployment step nor during the ballooning phase.The sealing at the annulus level is guaranteed with a correct and fix anchoring at the annulus level.Then, inserting some water in the aortic root from the outflow side, no paravalvular leaks were observed during each simulation.Considering the static conditions of the test and despite the residual deformation observed at the inflow side level, the water level remained stable under the leaflets free edge.Furthermore, the manufacturing and material records for the perceval heart valve, model #icv1211 , s/n # (b)(6), as they pertain to the reported event, were retrieved and reviewed by quality engineering at corcym.The results confirmed that this valve satisfied all material, visual, and performance standards required for a (model #icv1211) perceval heart valve at the time of manufacture and release, including an acceptable opened and closed leaflet performance.Based on the investigations performed, the reported event of postoperative perivalvular leak cannot be related to any factor intrinsic to the returned device as the reported event could not be reproduced.The deployment simulations and the static leak tests, performed on the returned valve in three different sizes of aortic roots, did not highlight evidence of paravalvular leaks.Given the information available, confirming that the patient ultimately received a st jude mechanical valve 21mm, a possible root cause for the reported event may be traced to a perceval mis-sizing.In fact, based on the perceval instructions for use (ifu), a pvs27 is indicated for patient¿s annuli of 25-27mm, while the replacement valve is indicated for tissue annulus diameters of 19mm.Since, however, the exact model of the mechanical replacement valve and the patient¿s annulus dimensions are not available, this cannot be ultimately confirmed and a definitive root cause cannot be established at this time.
|
|
On (b)(6) 2021, a patient received a perceval pvs27 through a rat procedure.After 5 days, the patient was discharged.Severe paravalvular leakage and transvalvular aortic regurgitation was observed at the echo on (b)(6) 2021.Redo case was planned on (b)(6).The perceval pvs27 valve was explanted and a st jude 21 mm mechanical valve was implanted.No stent folding was reportedly identified along with the pvl, and no possible root cause was identified based on the information received.
|