MAUDE Adverse Event Report: CORDIS CORPORATION OPTEASE RETRIEVAL FILTER; FILTER, INTRAVASCULAR, CARDIOVASCULAR

Model Number	466FXXXX
Medical Device Problem Codes	Fracture (1260); Unintended Movement (3026)
Health Effect - Clinical Codes	Perforation (2001); Perforation of Vessels (2135)
Date of Event	07/21/2020
Type of Reportable Event	Serious Injury
Event or Problem Description
As reported by the legal brief, a patient underwent placement of an optease vena cava filter.The filter subsequently malfunctioned and caused injury and damage to the patient, including, but not limited to fractured strut, perforation and tilting of the inferior vena cava (ivc) filter.As a direct and proximate result of these malfunctions, the patient suffered life-threatening injuries and damages and required extensive medical care and treatment.As a further proximate result, the patient has suffered and will continue to suffer significant medical expenses, and pain and suffering and other damages.
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
As reported a patient underwent placement of an optease vena cava filter.The information provided indicated that the filter subsequently malfunctioned and caused fractured strut, perforation and tilting of the inferior vena cava (ivc) filter.The indication for the filter implant, procedural details and medical history of the patient have not been provided and there is currently no additional information available for review.The product remains implanted and unavailable for analysis, the sterile lot number has not been provided; therefore, no device analysis nor device history record review could be performed.The optease 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.Ivc filter tilt has been associated with operator technique and vessel anatomy, specifically asymmetry and tortuosity.Vessel perforation is a known adverse event associated with implanting vena cava filters and is listed as such in the instructions for use (ifu).The ifu also notes vessel damage such as intimal tears and perforation as procedural and long-term complications related to ivc filters.The ifu also states that filter fracture with perforation 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.The timing and mechanism of the events has not been reported at this time and a clinical conclusion could not be determined as to the cause of the events.Without images available for review the reported events 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.
Event or Problem Description
Additional information received per the medical records indicate that the patient has a history of brain abscess following dental surgery.Approximately ten days prior to the filter implant the patient was involved in a motor vehicle accident and lost consciousness for about an hour after the accident.The patient was brought to the emergency room and evaluation noted intracranial brain abscess and meningitis, requiring surgical intervention with drain placement.Ten days post-operatively the patient was noted to have decreased o2 sats, a computed tomography (ct) angiogram was performed and noted extensive bilateral pulmonary embolism (pe).An ultrasound of the lower extremities discovered left common femoral vein deep vein thrombosis (dvt).As such the patient was set up for inferior vena cava (ivc) filter placement.Additional information received per the patient profile form (ppf) states that the patient experienced fracture, perforation of filter struts outside the inferior vena cava (ivc) and tilt.The patient became aware of the reported events approximately twelve years and four months after the index procedure.The patient also reported mental and physical pain due to the filter.
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
After further review of additional information received, the following sections have been updated accordingly: as reported a patient underwent placement of an optease vena cava filter.The information provided indicated that the filter subsequently malfunctioned and caused fractured strut, perforation and tilting of the inferior vena cava (ivc) filter.The patient became aware of the events approximately twelve years and four months post implant.The patient also reported unspecified mental and physical pain due to the filter.According to the medical records the approximately ten days prior to the filter implant the patient was involved in a motor vehicle accident and lost consciousness about an hour after the accident.The patient was brought to the emergency room and evaluation noted intracranial brain abscess and meningitis, requiring surgical intervention with drain placement.Ten days post-operatively the patient was noted to have decreased o2 sats, a computed tomography (ct) angiogram was performed and noted extensive bilateral pulmonary embolism (pe).An ultrasound of the lower extremities discovered left common femoral vein deep vein thrombosis (dvt).As such the patient was set up for inferior vena cava (ivc) filter placement.The product remains implanted and unavailable for analysis.A review of the device history record revealed no anomalies during the manufacturing and inspection processes that can be associated with the reported complaint.The optease 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.Ivc filter tilt has been associated with operator technique and vessel anatomy, specifically asymmetry and tortuosity.Vessel perforation is a known adverse event associated with implanting vena cava filters and is listed as such in the instructions for use (ifu).The ifu also notes vessel damage such as intimal tears and perforation as procedural and long-term complications related to ivc filters.The ifu also states that filter fracture with perforation 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.The timing and mechanism of the events has not been reported at this time and a clinical conclusion could not be determined as to the cause of the events.Without images available for review the reported events 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.

• Brand Name: OPTEASE RETRIEVAL FILTER
• Common Device Name: FILTER, INTRAVASCULAR, CARDIOVASCULAR
• Manufacturer (Section D): CORDIS CORPORATION; 14201 nw 60 avenue; miami lakes FL 33014
• Manufacturer (Section G): CORDIS CORPORATION; 14201 nw 60 avenue; miami lakes FL 33014
• Manufacturer Contact: karla castro ; 14201 nw 60 avenue; miami lakes, FL 33014 ; 7863138372
• MDR Report Key: 15249922
• Report Number: 9616099-2022-05906
• Device Sequence Number: 6540791
• Product Code: DTK
• UDI-Device Identifier: 20705032009413
• UDI-Public: 20705032009413
• Combination Product (Y/N): N
• Initial Reporter State: OH
• Initial Reporter Country: US
• PMA/510(K) Number: K034050
• Number of Events Summarized: 1
• Summary Report (Y/N): N
• Device Implanted Year: 2008
• Serviced by Third Party (Y/N): N
• Reporter Type: Manufacturer
• Report Source: Health Professional
• Initial Reporter Occupation: Non-Healthcare Professional
• Type of Report: Initial,Followup
• Report Date (Section B): 09/06/2022

1 Device was Involved in the Event

1 Patient was Involved in the Event

• Is this an Adverse Event Report?: Yes
• Is this a Product Problem Report?: Yes
• Operator of Device: Health Professional
• Device Model Number: 466FXXXX
• Device Catalogue Number: 466F220A
• Device Lot Number: R0707382
• Was Device Available for Evaluation?: No
• Type of Report(Section G): Thirty-Day
• Initial Date Received by Manufacturer: 07/21/2022
• Supplement Date Received by Manufacturer: 08/22/2022
• Initial Report FDA Received Date: 08/18/2022
• Supplement Report FDA Received Date: 09/06/2022
• Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? (Y/N): Device Not Returned to Manufacturer
• Date Device Manufactured: 08/15/2007
• Is the Device Labeled for Single Use? (Y/N): Yes
• Is This a Single-Use Device that was Reprocessed and Reused on a Patient? (Y/N): No
• Usage of Device: Initial
• Patient Sequence Number: 1
• Outcome Attributed to Adverse Event: Life Threatening
• Patient Age: 65 YR
• Patient Sex: Male