|
|
| Catalog Number |
8071M0H1 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Off-Label Use (1494); Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993); Migration (4003)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Deposits (1809); Subcutaneous Nodule (4548); Swelling/ Edema (4577); Appropriate Clinical Signs, Symptoms and Conditions Term/Code Not Available (4581); No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Case description: this spontaneous report was received from a us physician and concerns a 68-year-old male patient.The patient was injected bilaterally with radiesse from the lateral areas to the oral commissures (off label use of device), on 30-apr-2025.Batch number was reported as a00125150 (expiry date: 30-apr-2026).The batch record review was received and the lot number for radiesse was confirmed as a00125150 (expiry date: 30-apr-2026).A lot search in the global safety database was conducted.Four syringes of radiesse were injected using a needle.Radiesse was not diluted.The patient was previously injected with botox® and radiesse, which was well tolerated and without any adverse reactions.He had no past aesthetic injections in the area injected with radiesse.The patient was allergic to aspirin and penicillin.His relevant medical history included human immunodeficiency virus (reported as hiv +).His concomitant medications included biktarvy, serostim, losartan with amlodipine, testosterone, allopurinol, crestor, vesicare, and myrbetriq.On (b)(6) 2025, after the radiesse injection, the patient experienced that the area felt encapsulated, hard, like a lump lateral to the oral commissures bilaterally, that feels more of a product migration or accumulation in the area, and it looked like there was swelling.According to the physician, there was no clearly defined mass and it did not feel like a granuloma.The left side was bigger than the right side.It seemed as though the product was not absorbed by the skin.The patient was treated with hylenex.No laboratory tests were performed.The patient was not hospitalized and a diagnosis was not determined at the time of this report.The outcome of the events was reported as not resolved.In the opinion of the reporter, the events were not considered to be permanent, the treatment was necessary to prevent permanent damage and to accelerate recovery, and the events were related to the radiesse injection.Case amendment performed on (b)(6) 2025: case amendment was performed due to a technical issue related to information missing on the medwatch.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The batch record review for radiesse, lot a00125150, was normal, no nonconformance reports, corrective/preventive actions related to this lot.A lot search in the global safety database was conducted on the reported lot (batch a00125150) and no similar events were noted.This case was assessed by (b)(6) as serious.The events of product distribution issue, injection site induration, injection site swelling, and device dislocation were assessed as expected based on the currently valid us instructions for use leaflet of radiesse and possibly related to the treatment with radiesse.The reported left side was bigger is considered to be consequence of product distribution issue and therefore was not coded.Off label use of device was coded only for formal reasons.Injection from the lateral areas to the oral commissures is no approved indication for radiesse in us.Based on the information provided, this case was assessed as reportable to the fda as the events of product distribution issue and injection site induration were deemed to meet the serious injury criteria of required intervention to prevent permanent damage.Case amendment performed on (b)(6) 2025.Case amendment performed due to a technical issue related to missing information on the medwatch.Causality for the previously reported events remains unchanged as possibly related to the treatment with radiesse.Based on the information provided, this case was assessed as reportable to the fda as the events of product distribution issue and injection site induration were deemed to meet the serious injury criteria of required intervention to prevent permanent damage.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|