| Model Number |
20000ISMA |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Activation Failure (3270)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Mitral Valve Insufficiency/ Regurgitation (4451)
|
| Date of Event |
04/03/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
B2: other serious- even though there was no reintervention, there is a potential for reintervention in this case.The manufacturer's investigation is ongoing.A follow-up report will be submitted when the manufacturer's investigation is complete.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Edwards received a report of a pascal procedure in mitral position where when implanting a 3rd pascal, the implant release was difficult when detaching from the attachment fingers.All troubleshooting techniques specified in the procedural manual were attempted without success.The physician then gave the implant system an abrupt, quick, and firm yank while mounted in the srs at which point the implant released.The tug on the device resulted in posterior leaflet being pulled out of the device's grasp.It was noted the 3rd implant was stable and not mobilized, only rocking with the cardiac motion.The patient's mr was reduced from severe to moderate/severe only after implantation of the 3rd device.Device was stable and patient was discharged without further incident the following morning.There were noted anatomical challenges.The atrium was noted to be a huge atrium measuring 9x9 mm with a tsp height of 5x5 mm resulting in very difficult imaging during the case.There was no device issue perceived from the site, but the cs mentioned the other colleague determined the reason for difficulty removing the device was that they lost too much height to reach target location, resulting in extra tension in the system once the actuation wire was retracted.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The complaint for implant dislodged from a single leaflet, single leaflet device attachment (slda) intra-procedure was confirmed with empirical evidence.As the device was confirmed to be released from the wire and the fingers were open, it is believed that there was additional force placed on the system, either from prior procedural steps, through patient anatomy, or interaction with the 2 previously implanted devices, that caused the inability for the fingers to release.The disengagement of the device through a forceful pull of the implant system was the likely cause of the slda as described by the edwards clinical specialist.A dhr review was performed for the device and no manufacturing non-conformances related to this complaint event could be identified, and no labeling, training, or ifu deficiencies were found.Therefore, no preventative action or capa was required.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|