|
(b)(4).The device was not returned for investigation.No return product evaluation could be completed.Case details were reviewed.A seventy-five-year-old male patient (124.5kgs., 274.47lbs.), presented in the or for a tavr procedure.Mid-positioned access was gained by utilizing a micropuncture kit with ultrasound for guidance.The right common femoral arteriotomy was 8.6mm, clear of calcification and tortuosity, with a measured deployment depth of 4.5cm + 1cm.Issues were encountered advancing and withdrawing the 14f expandable procedural sheath and manta sheath, due to the presence of copious scare tissue.Following the tavr, an 18f manta was deployed to the measured deployment depth, and hemostasis was less than five minutes.A post-deployment angiography revealed an occlusion in the vessel.The vascular surgeon was called in for surgical intervention.During the cut-down procedure, the surgeon found that the entire manta device had been deployed intraarterially.The manta device was explanted, and the vessel was repaired.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 due to user error in deploying the entire manta device intravascular.Numerous causes for intraarterial deployment have been established.However, the exact reason for this intraarterial deployment is potentially due to user error.The severity of harm is ranked as a 3 due to surgical intervention being used as a treatment to achieve hemostasis.The manta instructions for use (ifu) lists potential adverse events related to the deployment of vascular closure devices including ischemia of the leg or stenosis of the femoral artery, and other access site complications leading to bleeding, possibly requiring surgical repair and endovascular intervention.
|
|
Qn#(b)(4).Udi related data quality updates only.Section d.4.-unique identifier (udi)# corrected to (b)(4).There appears to be no product quality issue concerning manufacturing, documentation, or labelling.The der process will continue to monitor and investigate similar events-no risk evaluation is required as the actual severity does not exceed the expected severity per the risk documentation.
|