|
It was reported that on (b)(6) 2023, a 23mm portico valve was selected for an implant with the following annular dimensions of the native valve aortic annulus: perimeter: 62.2mm, perimeter derived ø: 19.8mm, area: 292.2 mm², area derived ø: 19.3mm, min ø: 16.6mm, max ø: 22.8mm, average ø: 19.7mm, eccentricity: 0.27, lvot ø: 18.9mm.There was sufficient calcium to allow anchoring of the device in the opinion of the user.During the procedure, the physician went through the right transfemoral route, by severe aortic stenosis.Initially balloon pre-dilation was performed according to minimum diameter of the ring (16 mm).There was a need to recapture it once, before reaching the point implant latch.The device was successfully implanted in a patient with a depth of 4mm.After implantation, moderate leakage was observed by the transesophageal + transthoracic echocardiography and aortography, with perivalvular and transvalvular (central).There was a significant divergence of the pressure curve (diastolic pressure reduced).Post-dilation with a balloon according to the mean diameter of the ring (20 mm), with improvement of the perivalvular component but without improvement of central regurgitation, even after removing the rigid wire (non-abbott device) from inside the left ventricle (lv).Such as patient evolved with hemodynamic instability requiring the use of venous vasopressors.The physician decided to implant a second 23mm portico valve.The second valve was opened and prepared according to the ifu.At this point, when passing the guidewire back into the ventricle for insertion of the second valve, the guidewire touched the implanted valve and released a stuck leaflet.At this time, the patient's blood pressure improved and the central reflux disappeared.The second valve was prepared but not implanted.The patient is stable.
|
|
An event of aortic regurgitation moderate perivalvular leak and incomplete leaflet coaptation was reported.A returned device assessment could not be performed as the device remaines implanted and was not returned for analysis.The device history record was reviewed to ensure that each manufacturing and inspection operation was performed, and the product met all specifications.Based on the information received, the cause of the reported incident could not be conclusively determined.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to labeling design or manufacturing of the device.
|