|
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES ALTERRA ADAPTIVE PRESTENT SYSTEM; PULMONARY VALVE, PROSTHESIS, PERCUTANEOUSLY DELIVERED
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Model Number |
29AP4045A |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Great Vessel Perforation (2152)
|
| Date of Event |
09/11/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This is one of two manufacturer reports being submitted for this case.Please reference related manufacturer report no: 2015691-2023-15745.Investigation is still ongoing.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
As reported by clinical safety in regard to a post, approximately 1 month post transfemoral tpvr procedure with a 29mm sapien valve in an alterra present, the patient presented with chest pain and pericardial effusion, which was drained.The team elected to treat the patient with high dose aspirin for 4 weeks with improvement in symptoms and the effusion.A few weeks later, there was recurrence of chest pain and effusion with elevated crp again, the team treated with high dose steroids with time tapering over 6 weeks.The patient improved and did well.However, 2 months later, the patient presented again with severe chest pain, fever, and pericardial effusion with elevated crp.It was decided to remove the sapien 3 valve and alterra restents and place a 23mm homograft.Intraoperatively, the surgeon found that the alterra prestent was eroding through the wall of the main pulmonary artery in multiple locations.The patient is doing well with no chest pain or recurrence of the effusion.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The event reported is anticipated in the risk management documentation for transcatheter heart valve procedures.A previous investigation into this type of event is captured in an edwards lifesciences technical summary and applies to this complaint.Additional assessment of the failure mode is not required at this time.The device was not returned for evaluation.Due to the unavailability of the complaint device, engineering was unable to perform any visual inspection, functional testing, or dimensional analysis.Per the technical summary, the ifu, current risk mitigations include design and manufacturing controls, and training manuals have been reviewed, no inadequacies have been identified with regards to warnings, contraindications, and the directions/conditions for the successful use of the device.Imaging was received from the site, and the following was observed: multiple apices were found penetrating at the inflow during explant.A device history record (dhr) review did not reveal any manufacturing nonconformance issues that would have contributed to the event.A lot history review was performed and revealed no other complaints relating to the reported event were identified.A capa has previously been initiated to investigate if any ifu/physician training improvements can be implemented that may help prevent intraprocedural apex penetration events.In this case, the reported event for device penetration was confirmed through the provided imagery.Based on previous investigations, this issue was related to alterra deployment position being canted in the pulmonary artery.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, no further actions are required at this time.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|