|
The manufacturer is following up with the site to retrieve additional information on the event, the device involved a patient's clinical history and risk factors.A follow up report will be provided upon receipt of further information and/or at the completion of the investigation.H3 other text : not explanted, viv performed.
|
|
The manufacturer was informed that an indication for a valve in valve (viv) procedure was placed on an 84-year-old patient who had been implanted with a pvs 23mm perceval bioprosthesis on (b)(6) 2020.Reportedly, patient's native valve was tricuspid and perceval valve had been implanted because the native valve was calcified especially on the non-coronary leaflet.Patient had a history of ischemic cardiomyopathy.The surgery was performed without reported complications through median sternotomy and cabg (3 vessels) was executed as concomitant surgery.As reported, at the tte performed prior to the viv procedure, the perceval valve showed a vmax of 4.4m/s and a mean gradient of 47mmhg.As per additional information received, the viv procedure was performed in the week of (b)(6) using a sapien size 23 valve (edwards lifesciences) with a good outcome.
|
|
The manufacturing and material records for the perceval heart valve, model # icv1209, s/n # (b)(6), as they pertain to the reported event, were retrieved and reviewed by the manufacturer¿s quality engineering.The results confirmed that this valve has been manufactured and controlled in accordance with the specifications for a model # icv1209 perceval heart valve at the time of manufacture and release.Since the device remains implanted in the patient, the manufacturer couldn't perform further investigation on the device involved in this event.Despite several attempts to follow up on the reported event, limited information has been made available to the manufacturer.As reported in the scientific literature, structural dysfunction is the major cause of failure of bioprosthetic heart valves and the principal underlying pathologic process is cuspal calcification.It is possible that the patient¿s clinical history and risk factors may have contributed to the structural valve deterioration observed in this perceval s valve.However, little clinical history was provided so this cannot ultimately be confirmed.In particular, it is not known if the patient presented further risk factors in addition to the reported ischemic cardiomiopathy.It is though known from literature that svd shares some risk factors with atherosclerosis and calcific aortic stenosis which were both present as patient conditions at the time of perceval implant.As a further note, since no diagnostic images were shared with the manufacturer, it was not possible to assess if the perceval valve position was adequate to guarantee a norrmal functioning or if mechanical load and stress distribution on the prosthesis could have contributed to the early degeneration observed in this case.Ultimately, it should be noted that structural valve deterioration is listed as a possible adverse event in the perceval ifu.The event is, therefore, a known inherent risk of the device.
|