|
H11: additional manufacturer narrative: 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.
|
|
It was reported and investigation that a patient with a 21mm 3000 aortic valve underwent a valve-in-valve procedure after an implant duration of 7 years, 8 months due to calcification, degeneration, and stenosis.The patient presented with heart failure and sob.The procedure was performed with a 20mm 9755rsl transcatheter valve.The patient was in stable condition post procedure.
|
|
H11: additional manufacturer narrative: updated sections b5, b7, h6 (health effect clinical code, device code, investigation findings, investigation conclusions) svd is a logical and expected consequence of the chemical, mechanical, and immunological processes associated with bhv implantation.The common endpoint of all these factors is calcification and degradation.Svd is an acquired condition, intrinsic to bioprosthetic valves, characterized by deterioration of the leaflets or supporting structures, leading to thickening, calcification, tearing, or disruption of the prosthetic valve materials.These changes result in valvular dysfunction manifesting as stenosis and/or regurgitation with a consequent drop in hemodynamic efficacy of the valve.Despite the advancements in the heart valve industry, svd commonly begins 7- 8 years after implantation, with a considerably increased rate in patients with pertinent comorbidities and/or an implant duration of greater than 10 years.Prior investigations and extensive literature review have shown that svd is predominantly related to patient factors and implant duration rather than to manufacturing issues.Events related to device design, manufacturing, or use error tend to manifest at an earlier implant duration.The most likely root cause is patient factors.The subject device is not available for evaluation as it remains implanted in the patient.A device history record (dhr) review 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 device-related infection; and no evidence of a product failure with regard to design, reliability, or use error.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.
|