Manufacturing review: a device history record review could not be performed as the lot number is unknown.Investigation summary:the device was not returned for evaluation.Medical records were provided and reviewed.Approximately three years and three months later, computed tomography of chest with contrast and abdomen with and without contrast was performed which revealed there was an inferior vena cava filter in the infra renal position of the vena cava.After one month and two weeks, computed tomography of chest and abdomen was performed which showed inferior vena cava filter present.After one-month, computed tomography of abdomen and pelvis with and without contrast was performed which showed there was an infra renal inferior vena cava filter with legs of the filter appearing to project outside the inferior vena cava.After eight months, computed tomography of chest and abdomen with contrast was performed which showed there was an inferior vena cava filter in place.After ten months, computed tomography of abdomen and pelvis with and without contrast was performed and the patient was diagnosed with back pain.Therefore, the investigation is confirmed for the alleged perforation of the inferior vena cava.Based on the available information, the definitive root cause is unknown.Labeling review: a review of product labeling documents (e.G.Procedural instructions, indications, warnings, precautions, cautions, possible complications, contraindications, and unit label) showed that the product labeling is adequate.
|
It was reported through the litigation process that a vena cava filter was placed in a patient after being diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism.At some time post filter deployment, it was alleged that the filter perforated the inferior vena cava.The device has not been removed and there were no reported attempts made to retrieve the filter.The patient experienced pain in abdomen; however, the current status of the patient is unknown.
|