It was reported that a patient underwent placement of two trapease vena cava filters.Eleven days after placement of the first trapease filter, the patient was implanted with a second trapease device.The information provided indicated that the filters subsequently malfunctioned and caused tilting and migration.The indication for the filter placement, procedural details and medical history have not been provided and there is no additional information available for review.The products were not returned for analysis and the sterile lot numbers have not been provided; therefore, no device analysis nor device history record review could be performed.The trapease vena cava filter is indicated for use in the prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism (pe) via percutaneous placement in the vena cava for patients in which anticoagulants are contraindicated, anticoagulant therapy for thromboembolic disease has failed, emergency treatment following massive pe where anticipated benefits of conventional therapy are reduced or for chronic, recurrent pe where anticoagulant therapy has failed, or is contraindicated.The purpose of a vena cava filter is to catch thrombus from the lower extremities as it travels along normal blood flow patterns up towards the heart.The instructions for use (ifu) states filter fracture is a potential complication of vena cava filters.Anatomic locations that create concentrated stress points from filter deformation (for example, deployment at apex of scoliosis, overlapping of either of the renal ostia, or placement adjacent to a vertebral osteophyte) may contribute to fracture of a particular filter strut.Ivc filter migration is a known potential adverse event associated with all ivc filter implants and is listed in the ifu as such.Possible causes for filter migration include mega cava, wire entrapment during central venous catheter placement, ¿sail¿ effect (cranial migration) of large clot burden within the filter, mechanical device failure, and operator error.Physiologic causes of migration may result from temporary dysmorphism of the inferior vena cava including bending, coughing or valsalva maneuvers resulting in dislodgment of the filter.Some studies suggest that strenuous physical activity and increased intra-abdominal pressure can lead to migration of ivc filters.Without procedural films or post implant images for review the reported event(s) could not be confirmed or further clarified.Given the limited information available for review at this time, there is nothing to suggest that the reported events are related to the design and manufacturing process of the device; therefore, no corrective action will be taken.Should additional information become available, the file will be updated accordingly.
|
As reported in the legal brief a patient underwent placement of two trapease vena cava filters on different days.Eleven days after placement of the first trapease filter ((b)(4)), the patient was implanted with a second trapease device ((b)(4)).The filters subsequently malfunctioned and caused injury and damage to the patient including, but not limited to physical and emotional damages from tilting and migration and the resultant symptoms.As a direct and proximate result of these malfunctions, the patient suffered life threatening injuries and damages and required medical care and treatment.As a further proximate result, the patient has suffered and will continue to suffer significant medical expenses, pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, distress, and other damages.
|