|
(b)(4).Correction to section d: udi number.Additional information: no return product evaluation could be completed as the device was not returned for investigation.The device lot history record review for lot number 73b2400587 manta 18f indicated no non-conformities related to this lot.No impact related to the device, no reworks, or other issues related, therefore, supporting the device met material, assembly, and performance specifications before shipment.Case details were reviewed.Following the tavr, an 18f manta was deployed to the measured depth, and hemostasis was immediate.A post-deployment angiography revealed an obstruction in the vessel.The manta anchor appeared partially lodged in the vessel wall and was not flush.The physician attempted to get a wire past the obstruction, causing a dissection and perforation.Balloon angioplasty was applied, and the decision was made to intervene surgically.The vascular surgeon explanted the manta device and patch-repaired the vessel.The vascular surgeon noted the access was high.High-access sites are listed as contraindications to the manta device due to the possibility of not achieving an optimal seal and causing more difficulty in controlling bleeding.The patient did not experience any harm, injury, or health consequences due to this event, and the outcome post-procedure was fine.The root cause of the delivery of the implant not being effective in creating hemostasis requiring surgical cutdown is user error in deploying the manta device partially into the vessel wall.Numerous causes for intraarterial deployment have been established.However, the exact reason for this intraarterial deployment is potentially due to user error.
|