| Catalog Number |
DL900F |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Activation Failure (3270)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
04/02/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H10: as the lot number for the device was not provided, a review of the device history records could not be performed.The device has not been returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.However, image was provided for review.The investigation of the reported event is currently underway.H11: section a through f ¿ the information provide by bd represents all the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant/reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bd.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
On (b)(6) 2025, a patient underwent an inferior vena cava filter implantation procedure using denali filter.It was reported that the denali filter allegedly did not open when deployed, filter manually open with a balloon.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
On (b)(6) 2025, a patient underwent an inferior vena cava filter implantation procedure using denali filter.It was reported that the denali filter allegedly did not open when deployed, filter manually open with a balloon.There was no reported patient injury.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H11: manufacturing review: a manufacturing review was not requested as the lot number reported is unknown.Investigation summary: the physical device was not returned for evaluation.Single single-frame fluoroscopic image was provided and reviewed.The image depicts the filter deployed in the inferior vena cava.The legs of the filter appear to be tethered such that the filter does not fully open.Therefore, the investigation is confirmed for the reported expansion failure as the filter is not fully opened, and limbs appeared to be tethered.A definitive root cause for the reported expansion issue could not be determined based upon the provided information.Labeling review: as the reported event did not allege a labeling or use related issue, a labeling review is not required.G3, h6 (method, result, conclusion).Section a through f: the information provide by bd represents all the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant/reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bd.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|