|
|
| Model Number |
IMP-10 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Malposition of Device (2616)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
08/14/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
This was a dissection patient that was going to be treated in stages surgically.This first stage involved carotid/subclavian (lsa) bypass and embolization with an imp-10.The lsa was funnel-shaped and estimated to be 9 - 13mm, and 10 - 11mm at the target location for embolization.A 5fr cook flexor sheath was used with the imp-10, a 6fr sheath was used with the abbott amplatzer.After the carotid/subclavian bypass, a sheath was introduced from the brachial into the lsa and an imp-10 was deployed as a stand alone device (no tevar) into the lsa target location.The imp-10 was undersized relative to the vessel and migrated from the lsa to the iliac bifurcation upon deployment.The physician commented that the flow dynamics likely changed in the lsa after the bypass, causing flow to be directed from the lsa down toward the aorta (as opposed to normal flow up higher in the lsa).This could have led to the plug migrating to the iliac bifurcation.An ensnare was used from the brachial access to retrieve the plug.After multiple attempts, the anchor coil of the imp-10 was successfully snared and the entire implant was brought back up to the lsa.Note that when the plug was removed through the sheath, the anchor coil was pulled out of the patient but the foam portion of the imp-10 was sheared off and left in the patient lsa.An amplatzer was placed in the original target zone for the lsa, positioned closer to the origin of the aorta, with the imp-10 foam sitting above it in the lsa and providing further embolization along the target vessel.The case was completed and no subsequent adverse event to the patient occurred.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The imp-10 was being used to emoblize a left subclavian artery (lsa).The explanted anchor coil portion of the device was discarded and not returned to smm, therefore it could not be physically assessed.No specific device deficiency was reported that could have led to the migration.The video provided from the case was reviewed and it was observed that, during deployment, the anchor coil was in a round, unconstrained configuration, and the device migrated immediately upon full deployment from the delivery sheath.Additionally, the product ifu indicates the imp-10 for use in vessel sizes with a diameter of 6-10 mm.The lsa was measured to be 10-11 mm at the start of the case.This indicates that the device was likely under-sized for the vessel, as the anchor coil is the portion of the device intended to prevent migration when appropriately sized.Regarding device separation, the separation was not an inherent device malfunction as it was caused by the attempted removal in response to the migration.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|