Manufacturing review: a manufacturing review was not required as this is the only complaint reported to date for this product and lot.Investigation summary: the device was not returned for evaluation.Medical records were provided and reviewed.Approximately, five years one month of post deployment, computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis was revealed that the filter was in the lower portion of the inferior vena cava with its superior tip at l4 level.There was penetration of all the legs through the inferior vena cava wall with 2 of the struts coursing tangential to the anterior and posterior walls of the abdominal aorta.Two struts abut the lumbar spine, and another strut penetrates into the right psoas muscle.The patient reportedly experienced abdominal pain and back pain.The filter tilted.Therefore, the investigation is confirmed for the perforation of the inferior vena cava (ivc) and filter tilt.The definitive root cause could not be determined based upon available information.Labeling review: the review of the instructions for use, indications, warnings, precautions, cautions, possible complications, and contraindications showed that the product labeling is adequate.(expiry date: 06/2013).
|
It was reported through the litigation process that a vena cava filter was placed in a patient after being diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis.Approximately five years and one month post filter deployment, it was alleged that the filter tilted, and struts perforated.The device has not been removed and there were no reported attempts made to retrieve the filter.The patient reportedly experienced abdominal and back pain; however, the current status of the patient is unknown.
|