| Model Number |
9-PDAP-04-02-L |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Obstruction of Flow (2423); Material Deformation (2976); Migration (4003)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Renal Impairment (4499)
|
| Date of Event |
05/11/2021
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The results, method, and conclusion codes along with investigation results will be provided in the final report.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
On (b)(6) 2021, a 4/2 amplatzer piccolo occluder was selected for implant in a critically ill (b)(6) day old (b)(6) kg patient with the following patent ductus arteriosus (pda) dimensions: pda minimal diameter of 1.9mm, pda length of 7.3mm and diameter at aortic ampulla of 3.5mm.During the procedure, despite the device being appropriately sized, the patient experienced aortic impingement on multiple device deployments.Aortic imaging by ultrasound was extremely limited due to poor echo windows.On the final implant attempt the device was successfully positioned with no evidence of impingement on echo or by lower extremity arterial line waveforms, despite the pulmonary artery (pa) end of the device being moderately deformed.There was no clinically significant delay in procedure.Post procedure imaging was then performed and showed no evidence of aortic impingement.5 days later, the patient developed renal insufficiency and anuria.Echo was performed and showed significant device impingement of the aorta.Further imaging performed revealed that the aortic disc was extending into the aorta.It was then decided to place a 3.5 mm coronary stent which successfully relieved the aortic obstruction.The patient has since recovered from the pre-procedure state and is doing well.No additional information was provided.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
An event of device impingement of the aorta and device deformation on the pulmonary artery end of the device was reported.A more comprehensive assessment could not be performed, as the device was not returned for analysis.The device history record was reviewed, to ensure that each manufacturing and inspection operation was performed, and the product met all specifications.Based on the information received, the cause of the reported incident could not be conclusively determined.A capa was initiated for further investigation on the device migration, per internal procedures.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|