|
As reported by implant patient registry through receipt of an implant data card, approximately 1 year, 6 months, 12 days post transfemoral tavr procedure with a 20mm sapien 3 ultra valve, the patient's valve was explanted and replaced with a surgical valve.Per medical records received, the patient underwent a sternotomy with explant of the 20mm sapien 3 ultra resilia valve, due to stenosis with a gradient of 20mmhg, and no resolution of the symptoms experienced prior to implant.Tee report also showed paravalvular leak.The valve was replaced with a 23mm inspiris valve after aortic root replacement, and a 27mm mitral valve was also placed at that time.
|
|
The events reported are anticipated in the risk management documentation for transcatheter heart valve procedures.A previous investigation into this type of event is captured in an edwards lifesciences technical summary and applies to this complaint.Additional assessment of the failure modes is not required at this time.The device was not returned for evaluation.Due to the unavailability of the complaint device, engineering was unable to perform any visual inspection, functional testing, or dimensional analysis.Per the technical summary, the instructions for use (ifu), training manuals and current risk mitigations have been reviewed.No inadequacies have been identified with regards to warnings, contraindications, and the directions/conditions for the successful use of the device.Through extensive complaint investigations, stenosis/increased gradient events for the s3, s3u, s3ur valves post-implantation have not been associated with device malfunctions or manufacturing nonconformances.Rather, the root cause for these events have historically been due to patient factors (atherosclerosis, thrombosis, endocarditis, rheumatic fever, pannus formation) and/or procedural factors (under-deployed valve, valve size selection, patient-prosthesis mismatch).The reported event for stenosis was confirmed based on provided medical records.It is possible that one or more patient/procedural factors identified in the technical summary may have been present and contributed to the complaint event.However, due to insufficient information, a definitive root cause is unable to be determined.Per the instructions for use (ifu), paravalvular leak (pvl) and hemolysis are a potential adverse event associated with bioprosthetic heart valves and the transcatheter valve replacement (tvr) procedure.Paravalvular leak refers to blood flowing through a channel between the structure of the implanted valve and the landing zone, as a result of a lack of appropriate sealing of the valve to the target site.Some pvl is not uncommon post-deployment.Many cases are mild to moderate, and either resolve over time or do not cause symptoms.Others may be more clinically significant and require intervention.The patient screening manual and the procedure didactic identify several procedural and anatomical factors which could contribute to pvl, including device malposition, inaccurate measurement of the landing zone, uneven distribution of calcium on the landing zone, bulky or severe calcification, an elliptical annulus shape, and valve under-sizing.The mechanism behind worsening or late pvl is not well understood but may be related to cardiac remodeling.Edwards extensively trains physicians before they are qualified to use the sapien transcatheter heart valves (all models).The device training manuals instructs the operator on proper imaging screening requirements, including the use of good quality echocardiography and/or computed tomography (ct) to appropriately measure the landing zone, assess the content and distribution of calcium, and other patient anatomical factors.Multiple imaging modalities should be considered during valve size selection.Contraindications, important considerations when assessing the valve, and choosing the proper transcatheter heart valve are also discussed.The device training manuals also instruct the operator on proper positioning and deployment of the valve, including patients screening and procedural considerations.Device preparation, approach, deployment, imaging, procedure-specific training manuals, and proctored procedures are also included.In this case, there was no allegation or indication a product malfunction contributed to this adverse event.Although the exact cause and source of the pvl cannot be determined, it is possible patient factors not provided may have caused or contributed to the event.A review of edwards lifesciences risk management documentation was performed for this case.The reported event is an anticipated risk of the transcatheter heart valve procedure, additional assessment of this adverse event is not required at this time.The ifu and training manuals have been reviewed, and no inadequacies have been identified with regards to warnings, contraindications, and the directions/conditions for the successful use of the device.Complaint histories for all reported events are reviewed against trending control limits monthly, and any excursions above the control limits are assessed and documented as part of this monthly review.As such, neither a product risk assessment, nor corrective or preventative actions are required at this time.
|