|
The following sections were updated/corrected/added: b4, g3, g6, h2, h6, and h11.H6 type of investigation - labelling review.During this mitral procedure a small pericardial effusion was noted during the placement of the first pascal ace implant.The procedure was continued, and a second ace was implanted.Through the procedure the effusion continued to progressively grow.Intervention was ultimately required to stabilize the patient.Imaging assessment could not be performed as procedural images were not available for review.Per the information provided by the edwards clinical specialist, imaging was challenging as there was anatomical shadowing.Additionally, there was a small fossa ovalis complicating the transseptal puncture.Both of these factors could have contributed to puncturing of the atrial wall during the transeptal puncture though this cannot be confirmed as the effusion was not visualized at the time of the puncture.Alternatively, it is possible the cardiac damage could have occurred from unwanted contact of the pascal implant with the cardiac anatomy.Again, this cannot be confirmed due to lack of imaging and visualization at the time the damage occurred.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.
|