|
Edwards received notification of a pascal in mitral position where there were challenges with the guide sheath (gs).It was unable to correct for a-p trajectory and gain height as needed despite having adequate gs access.Patient did have a horizontal heart, had to place the patient in a slight left lateral decubitis position.Also suspected possible tortuous anatomy.The physician asked to have the guide sheath evaluated.The system was reset but the issue persisted despite adequate gs insertion.The procedure was completed with 1 pascal and mr (mitral regurgitation) was reduced from severe to moderate/severe.Additional information received from the cs (clinical specialist) stated that there was some discussion on the unresponsiveness of the gs.The physician also felt that due to the wide ap gap, we may have had more tension of the posterior leaflet and potentially a side bite of the leaflet that we were not able to appreciate.There was discussion that the patient may be brought back at a later date for reintervention.The cs inspected the gs with the is still inserted on the back table.The system was intact, he did observe some gs catheter bowing/curvature of the mid to proximal portion.
|
|
The following sections were updated/corrected/added: b4, g3, g6, h2, h6 and h11.Corrected b1 to be an adverse event only.There was no malfunction observed based on the investigation findings below.The complaint for unable to flex gs was confirmed with other empirical evidence.Based on the event description, there were several anatomical challenges encountered during the procedure.The patient had a horizontal heart, dense chordae and curling of pmvl.Per the physician account, the physician felt the gs did not hold its position when the a-p trajectory was adjusted or when gaining height which are accomplished by a combination of flexing and rotating the gs.At the time of the procedure, the medical team discussed the following potential causes for the difficulties experienced with gs positioning, tension towards the posterior leaflet due to wide ap gap, tortuous anatomy, or a potential device malfunction.Upon evaluation of the device, there were no malfunctions identified that could have contributed to difficulties positioning the gs.The gs flex was normal per the force to flex test conducted.There were no device defects that could impact gs rotation found during the evaluation.Furthermore, the device history record review was completed, and this device passed all manufacturing and sterilization inspections.No nonconformances related to the complaint event were identified.As no device defects were identified it is likely that the difficulties experienced during the procedure were a result of tortuous anatomy and a large ap gap resulting in a high-tension environment.Available information suggests that patient conditions (tortuous anatomy and large ap gap) may have contributed to the reported event.
|