MAUDE Adverse Event Report: EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES EDWARDS SAPIEN XT; AORTIC VALVE, PROSTHESIS, PERCUTANEOUSLY DELIVERED

Model Number	9300TFX29A
Medical Device Problem Codes	Gradient Increase (1270); Perivalvular Leak (1457); Difficult to Open or Close (2921)
Health Effect - Clinical Code	Dyspnea (1816)
Date of Event	07/11/2023
Type of Reportable Event	Serious Injury
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
Per the instructions for use (ifu), paravalvular leak (pvl) is a known potential adverse event associated with bioprosthetic heart valves and the transcatheter valve replacement (thv) procedure.The patient screening manual and the procedure didactic identify several procedural and anatomical factors which could contribute to pvl, including device malposition, inaccurate measurement of the landing zone, uneven distribution of calcium on the landing zone, bulky or severe calcification, a landing zone with an elliptical shape, and valve under or oversizing.Edwards extensively trains physicians before they are qualified to use the sapien thv (all models).The thv training manuals instructs the operator on proper imaging screening requirements, including the use of good quality echocardiography and/or computed tomography (ct) to appropriately measure the landing zone, assess the content and distribution of calcium, and other patient anatomical factors.Multiple imaging modalities should be considered during valve size selection.Contraindications, important considerations when assessing the valve, and choosing the proper thv are also discussed.The thv training manuals also instruct the operator on proper positioning and deployment of the valve, including patients screening and procedural considerations.Device preparation, approach, deployment, imaging, procedure-specific training manuals, and proctored procedures are also included.It is normal to have a small gradient across a prosthetic valve after implant.If elevated, it may indicate obstructed flow across the valve.An increase in gradients may result from patient factors such as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (hcm) or sub-valvular stenosis.Additionally, an increase in gradients can indicate that a leaflet is not functioning optimally due to thrombosis or early valve degeneration.In the instance of a bioprosthetic valve in valve implant, an increased gradient can be a result of intervalvular regurgitation and is not a result of a valve leaflet malfunction.If mild, these patients will not require intervention and will be followed with serial echocardiography.If significant and results in symptoms, it may require intervention.Per the instructions for use (ifu), structural valve deterioration (wear, fracture, calcification, leaflet tear/tearing from the stent posts, leaflet retraction, suture line disruption of components of a prosthetic valve, thickening, stenosis), and device degeneration are known potential risks associated with bioprosthetic heart valves.The ifu cautions that accelerated deterioration of the valve may occur in patients with an altered calcium metabolism.Long-term durability has not been established for the valve.Regular medical follow-up is advised to evaluate valve performance.Structural valve deterioration (svd) may be manifested as stenosis with thickened leaflets.Svd may be mild and not require any intervention or it may be moderate to severe.It can cause the heart to work harder to eject blood from the ventricle.Depending on the severity it could be an indication for valve replacement or medical intervention.Tissue calcification is a very common failure mode.The mechanisms for bioprosthetic heart valve tissue calcification are not yet fully understood.Many factors can contribute to the onset and propagation of calcification including patient-related (e.G., patient age, disease state, immune status, and other co-morbidities), pharmacological, and intrinsic properties of the valve itself.It is widely understood that patients with chronic renal disease and prior history of calcific stenosis of the native valve may be predisposed to bioprosthetic calcification.During the manufacturing process, all sapien thv valves are 100% visually inspected for defects and 100% functionally tested for proper coaptation under physiological backpressure conditions prior to release for distribution.Therefore, it is highly unlikely that a manufacturing defect or device malfunction contributed to the event.In this case, there was no allegation or indication a product malfunction contributed to this adverse event.Investigation results are inconclusive as patient and procedural factors were not provided; however, the event could be related to the mechanisms described above.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 this adverse event is not required at this time.The ifu and training manuals have been reviewed and no inadequacies have been identified with regards to warnings, contraindications, and the directions/conditions for the successful use of the device.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.As such, neither a product risk assessment, nor corrective or preventative actions are required at this time.H3 other text : remains implanted.
Event or Problem Description
As reported by the field clinical specialist, a patient underwent a transfemoral tavr procedure with a 29mm sapien xt valve in aortic position.Approximately 8 years post tavr, the patient presented with shortness of breath and a mean gradient of 66.The patient was diagnosed with a mix of restenosis and pvl.The patient underwent treatment with a 29mm sapien 3 valve inside the initial sapien xt valve.
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
A supplemental mdr is being submitted due to receipt of medical records and additional information.Sections a4, b4, b5, b7, g3, g6, h2, h6: device code, type of investigation, investigation conclusions and h10 has been updated.Additional information obtained through medical records clarified that the pvl was less than moderate and appeared mild.As such this event is no longer considered reportable as it is only a mild severity and was not confirmed.Per the instruction for use (ifu), valve stenosis is a potential risk associated with bioprosthetic heart valves.Per the valve academic research consortium (varc), valve stenosis can result from a number of factors, including pannus, calcification, support structure deformation (out-of-round configuration), trauma (cardia-pulmonary resuscitation, blunt chest trauma), endocarditis, prosthetic valve thrombosis, and native leaflet prolapse impeding prosthetic leaflet motion.Valve stenosis may result in symptoms such as shortness of breath and decreased exercise tolerance, which may be accompanied by an increased gradient across the valve.Per the instructions for use (ifu), structural valve deterioration (wear, fracture, calcification, leaflet tear/tearing from the stent posts, leaflet retraction, suture line disruption of components of a prosthetic valve, thickening, stenosis), and device degeneration are known potential risks associated with bioprosthetic heart valves.The ifu cautions that accelerated deterioration of the valve may occur in patients with an altered calcium metabolism.Long-term durability has not been established for the valve.Regular medical follow-up is advised to evaluate valve performance.Structural valve deterioration (svd) may be manifested as stenosis with thickened leaflets.Svd may be mild and not require any intervention or it may be moderate to severe.It can cause the heart to work harder to eject blood from the ventricle.Depending on the severity it could be an indication for valve replacement or medical intervention.Tissue calcification is a very common failure mode.The mechanisms for bioprosthetic heart valve tissue calcification are not yet fully understood.Many factors can contribute to the onset and propagation of calcification including patient-related (e.G., patient age, disease state, immune status, and other co-morbidities), pharmacological, and intrinsic properties of the valve itself.It is widely understood that patients with chronic renal disease and prior history of calcific stenosis of the native valve may be predisposed to bioprosthetic calcification.During the manufacturing process, all sapien thv (all models) are 100% visually inspected for defects and 100% functionally tested for proper coaptation under physiological backpressure conditions prior to release for distribution.Therefore, it is highly unlikely that a manufacturing defect or device malfunction contributed to the event.In this case, there was no allegation or indication a product malfunction contributed to this adverse event.Investigation results suggest that patient factors (patient age, immune status, co-morbidities) caused or contributed to this event.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 this adverse event is not required at this time.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.As such, neither a product risk assessment, nor corrective or preventative actions are required at this time.
Event or Problem Description
As per medical records review, it was confirmed that approximately 8 years and 3 months post implantation of a 29mm xt in the aortic position, the patient's tavr has developed severe bioprosthetic aortic valve stenosis which was confirmed by tte.This echo demonstrated av peak velocity of 3.8m/s, peak gradient of 59mmhg, mean gradient 40mmhg, av area 0.66cm2, and at least mild pvl that may be underestimated.The patient had a successful viv in the aortic position via right tf approach.The implant was a success with no pvl.

• Brand Name: EDWARDS SAPIEN XT
• Common Device Name: AORTIC VALVE, PROSTHESIS, PERCUTANEOUSLY DELIVERED
• Manufacturer (Section D): EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES; 1 edwards way; irvine CA 92614
• Manufacturer (Section G): EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES; 1 edwards way; irvine CA 92614
• Manufacturer Contact: renee van dorne ; 1 edwards way; irvine, CA 92614 ; 9492506385
• MDR Report Key: 17459547
• Report Number: 2015691-2023-15027
• Device Sequence Number: 7106001
• Product Code: NPT
• UDI-Device Identifier: 00690103193176
• UDI-Public: (01)00690103193176(17)170308
• Combination Product (Y/N): N
• Initial Reporter State: MT
• Initial Reporter Country: US
• PMA/510(K) Number: P130009
• Number of Events Summarized: 1
• Summary Report (Y/N): N
• Device Implanted Year: 2015
• Device Explanted Year: 2023
• Serviced by Third Party (Y/N): Unknown
• Reporter Type: Manufacturer
• Report Source: Health Professional,Company Representative
• Initial Reporter Occupation: Physician
• Type of Report: Initial,Followup
• Report Date (Section B): 09/22/2023

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 Expiration Date: 03/08/2017
• Device Model Number: 9300TFX29A
• Was Device Available for Evaluation?: No
• Is the Reporter a Health Professional?: Yes
• Was the Report Sent to FDA?: No
• Type of Report(Section G): Thirty-Day
• Initial Date Received by Manufacturer: 07/11/2023
• Supplement Date Received by Manufacturer: 08/29/2023
• Initial Report FDA Received Date: 08/04/2023
• Supplement Report FDA Received Date: 09/22/2023
• Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? (Y/N): Device Not Returned to Manufacturer
• Date Device Manufactured: 04/06/2015
• 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: Required Intervention
• Patient Age: 78 YR
• Patient Sex: Male
• Patient Weight: 91 KG