Edwards received notification from our affiliate in canada.As reported, this was a case of 29mm sapien 3 valve implant, in the aortic position by transfemoral approach.During the valve deployment, the 29mm sapien 3 valve embolized towards the aorta due to loss of pacing capture the valve was implanted in the descending aorta.Therefore, a second 29mm sapien 3 valve was implanted in the intended position.The patient outcome was good.As per medical opinion, the root cause of the event was the loss of pacing capture.
|
The device was not returned for evaluation as it remained implanted.Therefore, a no product return engineering evaluation was performed.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 valve embolized into aorta was unable to be confirmed as no imagery/ medical record was provided for evaluation.There was no allegation or indication a device malfunction contributed to this adverse event.Therefore, no device history record or lot history are required.A review of ifu/training materials revealed no deficiencies.Per the instructions for use (ifu), valve embolization is a known potential adverse event associated with the transcatheter valve replacement (thv) procedure.There are multiple patient and procedural factors that alone or in combination can cause or contribute to aortic embolization, including improper positioning before deployment, poor image intensifier angle, poor coaxial alignment of the valve and delivery system, severe septal hypertrophy, minimally or bulky/severely calcified leaflets, preserved ejection fraction, loss of pacing capture, rapid deployment, the release of stored tension during deployment, and movement of the delivery system by the operator.As reported, ''during procedure, during the valve deployment due to loss of pacing capture the 29mm sapien 3 valve embolized towards the aorta.The valve was implanted in the descending aorta.'' in this case, the loss of pacing capture caused the valve to jump into the aorta.Per training manual, loss of pacing capture during valve deployment could lead to ''sudden movement during deployment'' resulting in valve embolized into the aorta as reported.As such, available information suggests that procedural factors (loss of pacing capture) may have contributed to the reported event.No device or labeling problem was identified during the evaluation.Therefore, no further escalation (capa/scar/pra) is required.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.
|