Manufacturing review:a lot history review was performed.This is the only complaint to date for this lot number.Therefore, a device history record review is not required.Investigation summary:the device was not returned for evaluation.Medical records were provided and reviewed.Approximately ten years nine months and six days post deployment, computed tomography of abdomen demonstrated the most anterior strut extended 7 mm anterior to the anterior wall of the inferior vena cava.The left anterior and posterior struts extended 5 mm beyond the inferior vena cava border.The findings were consistent with strut perforation and no evidence of adjacent organ infiltration.Therefore, the investigation is confirmed for the perforation of the ivc.Based upon 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.(expiry date: 03/2011).
|
It was reported through the litigation process that a vena cava filter was placed in a patient with pulmonary embolism and who was not a candidate for anticoagulation.Approximately, ten years and nine months post filter deployment, it was alleged that the filter struts perforated.The device has not been removed and there were no reported attempts made to retrieve the filter.The current status of the patient is unknown.
|