|
A supplemental mdr is being submitted due to engineering evaluation findings.Sections g6, h2 and conclusions in this section were updated.H6 codes were added: type of investigation.H6 codes were corrected: health effect - clinical code, investigation findings, investigation conclusions.The events reported is an anticipated in the risk management documentation for transcatheter heart valve procedures.A previous investigation into these types of events 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), current risk mitigations including design and manufacturing controls, 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.The complaint for stenosis was confirmed based on the provided medical records.Through extensive complaint investigations, 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).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) is a known 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/pre-stent 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 that a product malfunction contributed to the adverse event of pvl.The exact cause of the reported event could not be determined.However, investigation results suggest that patient factors (calcification) caused or contributed to this event.Complaint histories for all reported events are reviewed against trending control limits on a monthly basis, 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.
|