• Decrease font size
  • Return font size to normal
  • Increase font size
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: INTERVASCULAR SAS CARDIOROOT; PROSTHESIS, VASCULAR GRAFT, OF 6MM AND GREATER DIAMETER

  • Print
  • Share
  • E-mail
-
Super Search Devices@FDA
510(k) | DeNovo | Registration & Listing | Adverse Events | Recalls | PMA | HDE | Classification | Standards
CFR Title 21 | Radiation-Emitting Products | X-Ray Assembler | Medsun Reports | CLIA | TPLC
 

INTERVASCULAR SAS CARDIOROOT; PROSTHESIS, VASCULAR GRAFT, OF 6MM AND GREATER DIAMETER Back to Search Results
Model Number HEWROOT0030
Device Problems Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993); Insufficient Information (3190)
Patient Problem Hemorrhage/Bleeding (1888)
Event Date 07/19/2022
Event Type  Injury  
Event Description
It was reported to intervascular that a cardioroot has been implanted with a 27 mm edwards inspiris valve.The following day, it was reported that the patient went back to theatre to establish haemostasis.There was a "bleeing" requiring reoperation.The implantation technique is 6 polypropylene stay sutures to attach cardioroot with valve.Implanted with a continuous polypropylene suture as per his valsalva technique.Complaint #(b)(4).
 
Manufacturer Narrative
Device is not accessible for testing as it remained implanted in the patient.The review of historical data indicated that no other similar complaint was reported for the same lot number.A review of the complaint device history records is ongoing, results are pending.The investigation is still ongoing.A follow-up report will be sent upon completion of the investigation.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
(11/3221) a first retention sample from the same sterilization lot and from the same product family, coated one day after and under similar conditions as the involved device underwent water permeability testing.However, according to the qa manager, the water permeability result on the retention product is not admissible due to the degraded condition of the retention product and its over-handling prior to the test.This result should not be considered in this investigation.(3331- 4110/213) additional production records and trend analyses were performed by the qa manager following the retention sample analysis.The traceability analysis did not show any specific items.(b)(4).The search shows no similar complaints on lots 22c10, 22c17, 22c24, 22c31 and 22d07.There is no trend on cardioroot products.The qa manager did a review of the investigation at the time and concluded that: "based on all the above, no anomalies/trends were found that could direct the investigation to a production problem.[.] the investigation is currently directed towards an isolated case." (4102/213) a second retention sample was selected by the qa manager.The sample is from another sterilization lot and has more parameters in common (collagen dispersion and date of quality control) than the product already tested (apart from product type).This second retention sample underwent waterpermeability testing.The test result is 0.48 ml/cm²/min which is within specification (< 5 ml/cm²/min).(11) the investigation is still ongoing.A follow-up report will be sent upon completion of the investigation.
 
Event Description
See mfg reports #1640201-2022-00024.Complaint #(b)(4).
 
Manufacturer Narrative
(3331/213)the device history records review concluded that there was no non-conformance / planned deviation in relation with the event reported.(11) the investigation is still ongoing.A follow-up report will be sent upon completion of the investigation.
 
Event Description
Complaint #(b)(4).
 
Event Description
See mfg reports #1640201-2022-00024.Complaint #(b)(4).
 
Manufacturer Narrative
(4112/213) the case description and the investigation has been reviewed by the medical affairs manager whose assessment is below: "the complaint recorded describes a procedure where a 30 mm cardioroot graft was sutured to a 27mm edwards inspiris valve using 6-0 prolene suture, then implanted using a continuous prolene suture.No additional procedural details were provided.The following day, the patient returned to the or to achieve ¿hemostasis¿.It was reported that the surgeon used the cardioroot graft once previously.The account was contacted for additional information regarding details of the procedure, however no information was provided.It would be important to understand where the issue of ¿hemostasis¿ (i.E.Bleeding) was seen when the patient underwent reoperation, if the post-op coagulation parameters were normal, and what exactly was done to repair the issue.Additionally, there was no mention of any intraoperative challenges, such as a complicated procedure, friable tissue, or difficult anatomy which may have contributed to bleeding issue.The customer suggested that when using cardioroot, he may ¿adapt his technique by including haemostatic agents and possibly mattress sutures with pledgets.¿ because the cardioroot graft remained implanted, retention product was tested for water permeability.The first test was deemed not acceptable due to the condition of the product and its over-handling before the test.This result was not taken into account in the investigation.The second retention sample,which came from a different lot resulted in conformance to the specifications.There is a second complaint for the same lot number however, it is not similar in nature as the complaint was regarding "damaged packaging during handling" and no issue with bleeding was noted.In conclusion, based on the extremely limited information provided in this complaint record and without knowing the surgical details regarding the implantation of the cardiorootvascular graft and edwards valve, it is difficult to ascertain the exact cause of the hemostasis issue.Considering that the graft remained implanted and it is unknown exactly what caused the bleeding issue or how the issue was resolved, as well as the surgeon¿s lack of experience with the cardioroot graft, it is reasonable to conclude that the bleeding was not likely due to the cardioroot graft itself, but perhaps with one of the above mentioned contributing factors." (67) no conclusion can be drawn since the product remained implanted.However, the conducted investigation and testing performed suggest that the product was not defective at the time of manufacturing.(22) please note that blood leakage is an undesirable side-effect as indicated in the instructions for use.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
CARDIOROOT
Type of Device
PROSTHESIS, VASCULAR GRAFT, OF 6MM AND GREATER DIAMETER
Manufacturer (Section D)
INTERVASCULAR SAS
zone industrielle athelia i
la ciotat 13705
FR  13705
Manufacturer (Section G)
INTERVASCULAR SAS
zone industrielle athelia i
la ciotat 13705
FR   13705
Manufacturer Contact
laurence richard
zone industrielle athelia i
la ciotat 13705
FR   13705
442084646
MDR Report Key15112493
MDR Text Key296677546
Report Number1640201-2022-00024
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code DSY
UDI-Device Identifier00384401013914
UDI-Public(01)00384401013914
Combination Product (y/n)N
Reporter Country CodeAS
PMA/PMN Number
K103347
Number of Events Reported1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Health Professional,Company Representative
Reporter Occupation Physician
Type of Report Initial,Followup,Followup,Followup
Report Date 10/25/2022
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received07/27/2022
Is this an Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is this a Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator Health Professional
Device Model NumberHEWROOT0030
Device Catalogue NumberHEWROOT0030
Device Lot Number22C24
Was Device Available for Evaluation? No
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? Yes
Date Manufacturer Received10/06/2022
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? No
Date Device Manufactured03/24/2022
Is the Device Single Use? Yes
Type of Device Usage Initial
Patient Sequence Number1
Patient Outcome(s) Required Intervention;
Patient SexMale
-
-