|
Edwards received notification from a field clinical specialist that during a pulmonic tavr in a previous surgical valve, two 9600tfx sapien 3 23 mm valves were implanted.As reported, the first valve was deployed was post dilated with a 20 mm atlas balloon.This caused a 'flail' leaflet.The leaflet looked torn.A second valve 9600tfx sapien 3 23 mm valve was required and during deployment, the commander balloon ruptured causing the preexisting conduit to dehisced at the distal sutures the patient was taken to surgery to repair.Patient is stable and recovering in icu.
|
|
The device was not returned for evaluation, therefore a no product return engineering evaluation was performed.The device history record (dhr) was reviewed and the work orders did not reveal any manufacturing nonconformance issues that would have contributed to the complaint event.A lot history review was performed and revealed no other complaints relating to this event.A review of edwards lifesciences risk management documentation was performed for this case.The reported event is an anticipated risk of the transcatheter heart valve procedure, additional assessment of the failure mode is not required at this time.The complaint balloon burst was unable to be confirmed as neither the device nor applicable imagery was returned.Due to the unavailability of the device, engineering was unable to perform any visual, functional, or dimensional analysis.Therefore, a manufacturing non-conformance was unable to be determined during the evaluation.Additionally, a review of the lot history, dhr and manufacturing mitigations did not provide any indication that a manufacturing non-conformance would have contributed to the complaint.A review of the ifu and training manuals revealed no deficiencies.As reported, 'during deployment, the commander balloon ruptured causing the preexisting conduit to dehisced'.Per case notes, an extra volume of '+1ml' was added do the balloon prior to the inflation.The prescribed nominal inflation volume is provided in the ifu as 17ml.Adding additional volume can lead to balloon overinflating.Subjecting the balloon to pressures high enough to cause the balloon to burst may have led to the reported complaint event.However, due to no device return, a definite root cause was unable to be determined.Available information suggests that procedural factors (over-inflation) may have contributed to the reported event.Since no product non-conformances, labeling or ifu/training manual deficiencies were identified, neither corrective/preventative actions nor product risk assessment (pra) are required at this time.Complaint histories for all reported events are reviewed against trending control limits monthly, and any excursions above the control limits are assessed and documented as part of this monthly review.
|