|
It was reported and learned through medical records that a patient with a 23mm 8300ab aortic valve implanted four (4) years, two (2) months, underwent valve-in-valve procedure due to leaflet thickening, patient-prosthesis mismatch, and severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.Patient presented with dyspnea and fatigue with exertion.Tavr was performed with a 26mm non-edwards transcatheter valve.Patient was transferred to recovery area.There were no complications.Per medical records, the bioprosthetic aortic valve leaflets appeared thickened in a recent tte, the valve appeared to be small for the patient size.The patient underwent tavr and tmvr with no complications.
|
|
H11: additional manufacturer narrative: updated: b4, d4, g3, g6, h2, h4, h6.The device history record (dhr) review was completed and this device passed all manufacturing and sterilization inspections prior to release for distribution.Devices are typically explanted or disabled because they are not functioning optimally.In some cases, the failure mode is not provided.Other times, it may be reported as but not limited to; stenosis, increased/high gradient, regurgitation, transvalvular leak, thickened leaflet, leaflet tear, immobility, restriction, and/or unspecified svd or nsvd.Leaflet thickening may be attributed to structural valve deterioration (svd) and/or non-structural valve dysfunction (nsvd).Svd is a logical and expected consequence of the chemical, mechanical, and immunological processes associated with bhv implantation.The common endpoint of all these factors is calcification and degradation.Svd is an acquired condition, intrinsic to bioprosthetic valves, characterized by deterioration of the leaflets or supporting structures, leading to thickening, calcification, tearing, or disruption of the prosthetic valve materials.These changes result in valvular dysfunction manifesting as stenosis and/or regurgitation with a consequent drop in hemodynamic efficacy of the valve.Prior investigations and extensive literature review have shown that svd is predominantly related to patient factors and implant duration rather than to manufacturing issues.Events related to device design, manufacturing, or use error tend to manifest at an earlier implant duration.Nsvd is defined as any abnormality not intrinsic to the valve itself that results in dysfunction of the prosthetic valve.The term nsvd refers to problems that are not directly related to failing valve components, yet it results in dysfunction of the prosthetic valve.There can be several causes of early leaflet thickening, such as early thrombosis/halt, early endocarditis or host tissue overgrowth.The instructions for use (ifu) have been reviewed, and no inadequacies have been identified with regard to warnings, contraindications, and the directions/conditions for the successful use of the device.The reported type of event is included in the ifu.A capa/scar/pra is not required, as there are no confirmed product or labeling non-conformances and no other triggers are met.The most likely cause is patient factors, including coronary artery disease, type ii diabetes mellitus, tobacco use, stage iii chronic kidney disease.Patient prosthesis mismatch (ppm) is present when the effective orifice area of the implanted bioprosthetic valve is too small in relation to body size.Literature indicates ppm's main hemodynamic consequence is to generate higher than expected gradients through a normally functioning bioprosthetic valve.It has been shown to be associated with worse hemodynamic function, less regression of left ventricular hypertrophy, more cardiac events, and lower survival.Improperly sized valves with ppm can hasten the development of early degenerative changes and premature prosthetic valve dysfunction with varying degrees of prosthetic valve stenosis and regurgitation.Although ppm is a well-recognized phenomenon of bioprosthetic valves, it is most likely related to patient anatomical changes after long implant durations.When discovered intraoperatively or early post-operatively, ppm is most likely related to procedural factors, including specific patient assessment and valve model and size selection.There is no evidence to suggest a manufacturing defect caused or contributed to the reported event.The most likely root cause is patient and procedural factors.
|