| Model Number |
PVF-M |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Patient-Device Incompatibility (2682)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Heart Block (4444)
|
| Date of Event |
10/14/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The manufacturing and material records for the device involved in this event, as they pertain to the reported issue, were retrieved and reviewed by the manufacturer¿s quality engineering.The results confirmed that this prosthesis satisfied all required material, visual, and performance standards at the time of manufacture and release.The device remains implanted and therefore is not accessible for testing.As such, further investigation cannot be performed.Based on the available information, it is not possible to definitively determine the root cause of the complete atrioventricular block onset.However, the document review did not identify any manufacturing deficiencies in the device.It should be noted that conduction disorders are common in patients with aortic valve diseases, often leading to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation after aortic valve replacement.Risk factors include preexisting conduction disease, which, based on the available information, was not present though in the patient's medical history, and preoperative aortic regurgitation.Therefore, the reported event is a known inherent risk of the procedure and is listed among the potential adverse events in the percival ifu.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The manufacturer was informed of the following event through mantra study.Based on the information received, a percival plus valve (pvf-m) was implanted in the patient on (b)(6) 2025.On the same day, the patient developed a complete atrioventricular block, which persisted until (b)(6) 2025.As the condition did not resolve, a permanent pacemaker was implanted on (b)(6) 2025.The reported outcome is "recovered/resolved w.Sequelae".The patient experienced a stroke on postoperative day 1, which, based on the available information, was attributed to bilateral carotid stenosis diagnosed after the event.Based on the available information, the patient's medical history included coronary artery disease, systemic hypertension, dyslipidaemia, pulmonary hypertension, and a resolved malignancy.Atrial flutter was reported and surgically treated in 2024.The patient was classified as nyha functional class ii.No device deficiency has been reported from the site.The site assessed the event as possibly related to the device and probably related to the implanting procedure.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|