| Model Number |
TCDS0301-XT |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Incomplete Coaptation (2507)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
05/07/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported on (b)(6) 2025 a patient presented with grade 4 tricuspid regurgitation (tr) and a restricted septal leaflet for a triclip procedure.Imaging was challenging due to the patient's anatomy and pacemaker lead.One triclip was implanted.A second triclip xt was placed on the septal and posterior leaflet segments.Post-deployment a single leaflet device attachment (slda) was observed with the second clip.The clip detached from the septal leaflet and remained attached to the posterior leaflet.A third triclip was deployed to stabilize the second clip.The final tr grade was 2.Per the physician the slda was due to poor imaging.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The device remains implanted in patient.The device will not be returned for evaluation.Investigation is not yet complete.A follow-up report will be submitted with all additional relevant information.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported on (b)(6) 2025 a patient presented with grade 4 tricuspid regurgitation (tr) and a restricted septal leaflet for a triclip procedure.Imaging was challenging due to the patient's anatomy and pacemaker lead.One triclip was implanted.A second triclip xt was placed on the septal and posterior leaflet segments.Post-deployment a single leaflet device attachment (slda) was observed with the second clip.The clip detached from the septal leaflet and remained attached to the posterior leaflet.A third triclip was deployed to stabilize the second clip.The final tr grade was 2.Per the physician the slda was due to poor imaging.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The device was not returned for analysis.A review of the lot history record revealed no manufacturing nonconformities issued to the reported lot that would have contributed to this event.Additionally, a review of the complaint history did not indicate a lot-specific quality issue.Based on available information and per the physician, the reported slda was due to procedural circumstances.The reported difficult imaging was due to patient anatomy.The reported unexpected medical intervention was a result of case-specific circumstances.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design, or labeling.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|