|
It was learned through implant patient registry that a patient with a 23mm 2700 aortic valve was explanted after an implant duration of 4 years, 11 months due to unknown reasons.The explanted valve was replaced with a 23mm 11500a valve.Edwards lifesciences maintains an implant patient registry.This registry is a patient tracking mechanism for serialized edwards implantable devices (bioprosthetic heart valves and annuloplasty rings), rather than a true post-market surveillance registry.Through the registry, edwards is notified when these devices are implanted.In addition, patient and/or device status may be reported to the registry via the implantation data cards.The information is received from various sources (e.G.Surgeon, hospital, and patient family members) and is not received in the form of a conventional "customer complaint".The information reported may or may not be related to the edwards device.
|
|
H11: additional manufacturer narrative: the subject device is not available for evaluation, as it has not been returned.The investigation is still in progress; therefore, a conclusion has yet to be established.A supplemental report will be submitted accordingly upon investigation completion.Edwards will continue to review and monitor all reported events.Trends are monitored on a monthly basis and if action is required, appropriate investigation will be performed.Despite repeated attempts to obtain further information regarding this event, no additional information has been received from the customer at this time.
|
|
Updated sections: b4, g3, g6, h2, h6 (investigation findings, and investigation conclusions).A device history record (dhr) review was not performed, as no information regarding a device failure mode was provided.Furthermore, there is no allegation of a malfunction which could be related to a manufacturing non-conformance and/or one was not suspected or confirmed through investigation; no labeling non-conformance/deficiency; no device-related infection; and no evidence of a product failure with regard to design, reliability, or use error ((b)(4) , rev o).Engineering evaluation summary: per doc-0101337, rev o, an engineering evaluation is not required because there is no allegation of a malfunction which could be related to a manufacturing non-conformance and/or one was not suspected or confirmed through investigation; no labeling non-conformance/deficiency; no use-related issue with a hazardous situation; no device-related infection; and no evidence of a product failure with regard to design, reliability, or use error.An ifu review is unable to be performed, as no details regarding failure mode of the device were provided.Per (b)(4) , rev o, and doc-0076862, rev o, a capa/scar/pra is not required as there is no confirmed product, or labeling non-conformances and no other triggers are met.Based on the information available, a definitive root cause cannot be conclusively determined.All pertinent information available to edwards lifesciences has been submitted.
|