|
It was reported by the field clinical specialist (fcs) that approximately 10 years, 3 months, and 7 days post transfemoral tavr with a 23mm sapien xt valve the patient had a valve in valve using a 20mm sapien 3 ultra valve due to regurgitation.The valve was successfully implanted.
|
|
A supplemental mdr is being submitted due to engineering evaluation findings.Sections g6, h2, h6: device code, type of investigation, investigation findings, investigation conclusions and conclusions in this section have been updated.The event reported is anticipated in the risk management documentation for transcatheter heart valve procedures.Additional assessment of the failure mode 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.The complaint for regurgitation worsening was confirmed based on fcs (field clinical specialist) report.The reported event does not allege a malfunction that may be related to an edwards (ew) manufacturing deficiency.A review of the ifu and training manuals revealed no deficiencies.During the manufacturing process, all sapien xt valves are 100% visually inspected for defects and 100% tested for proper coaptation under physiological backpressure conditions prior to release for distribution.Therefore, it is highly unlikely that a manufacturing defect or device malfunction contributed to the event.Per the instructions for use (ifu), valve regurgitation is a potential adverse event associated with bioprosthetic heart valves and the tavr procedure.Regurgitation which develops progressively over time can be due to a number of issues including patient related factors or structural valve deterioration, including calcification, non-calcific degeneration, leaflet thickening or fibrosis, or a combination of these.Regurgitation may also develop progressively if host fibrotic tissue, or pannus, grows onto the bioprosthetic valve.Pannus, a cause of nonstructural dysfunction, may interfere with functionality of the device by restricting the leaflet motion leading to abnormal coaptation.Due to limited information, a definitive root cause was unable to be determined at this time.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.Since no edwards product defects or labeling deficiencies were identified, no corrective or preventative action is required.
|