|
Edwards received notification of a pascal in mitral procedure where an implant was attempted and aborted.A patient injury (death) occurred related to the device and procedural complication.Tsp (transseptal puncture) was attempted 3 times.The wire very easily slipped across the ias (interatrial septum).Tsp was reattempted due to height of the first tsp.Clinical specialist mentioned that the wire slipped across the ias like butter yet they did not believe a perforation was created during that procedural step as no effusion was seen at that time.1 ace was placed medial a2p2.The second device was inserted, and upon exiting the guide and closing, it was noted on fluoro that the implant appeared to have tension.Ic was exiting gs (guide sheath) and closing implant without echo guidance and was looking only on fluoro.While on fluoro, ic closed the device and started to flex down, and when echo was visualized again, ec (echocardiographer) informed team that the implant was outside of the pericardium and cardiac tamponade was noted.The team began cpr, and ic proceeded to perform a pericardial tap with copious amounts of very thin blood.Surgical team took over at which point the device was removed.The patient received 8-10 units of blood or more.Ic admitted fault and should have waited for imaging prior to maneuvering the implant.Also of note, patient xarelto had not been held potentially leading to worsening bleeding upon perforation of atrium.The patient ultimately died as the bleeding was significant and unable to be controlled.
|
|
The following sections were updated/corrected/added: b4, d4, g3, g6, h2, h4, h6 and h11.Additional h6 type of investigation codes to include analysis of images and labeling review.The complaint for inability or difficulty to insert device into transseptal puncture location was confirmed.Per the imaging evaluation performed, there is confirmation of severe hemodynamic disturbance secondary to pericardial effusion that progressed to cardiac tamponade and into mechanical and electrical asystole.There is lack of imaging for the second pascal device described in the allegation.There was no allegation of product malfunction reported.Available information suggests that procedural context (second device inserted, closed implant after exiting the guide, it was noted on fluoro that the implant appeared to have tension.Ic closed implant without echo guidance and was looking only on fluoro) likely contributed to the adverse event.Subsequently, while on fluoro, ic closed the device and started to flex down, and when echo was visualized again, ec informed team that the implant was outside of the pericardium and cardiac tamponade was noted.The device history record review was completed, and this device passed all manufacturing and sterilization inspections.No nonconformances related to the complaint event were identified.Since no edwards defect was identified, corrective or preventative actions are not required.
|