|
It was reported and learned through investigation that a patient with a 29mm 11500a aortic valve, implanted in the pulmonary position, underwent a valve-in-valve procedure after an implant duration of 6 years, 4 months due to moderate regurgitation and stenosis.The patient presented with sob.The procedure was performed with a 29mm 9755rsl transcatheter valve.The patient was in stable condition post procedure and discharged pod #1.
|
|
H11: additional manufacturer narrative: the investigation is still in progress; therefore, a conclusion has yet to be established.A supplemental report will be submitted accordingly upon investigation completion.Edwards will continue to review and monitor all reported events.Trends are monitored on a monthly basis and if action is required, appropriate investigation will be performed.
|
|
H11: additional manufacturer narrative: updated sections h6 (investigation findings, investigation conclusions).Based on the information available, the device was intentionally used outside the way it was designed and intended.The performance, safety, efficacy, longevity, and durability of bioprosthetic valves have not been determined when the product is used outside the scope of its intended use and/or its studied population.Regurgitation is a common manifestation of bioprosthetic valve and valved conduit dysfunction.Common intraoperative factors that may cause or contribute to acute post-procedural regurgitation include device distortion; device interaction with patient anatomy or other devices; leaflet damage, and incorrectly sized valve seated.Non-structural valve dysfunction (nsvd), endocarditis and/or thrombosis may also cause or contribute to acute post-procedural regurgitation.Complaints reported with regurgitation as the primary complaint code are not typically attributed to manufacturing-related nonconformances.The device history record (dhr) review was completed, and this device passed all manufacturing and sterilization inspections prior to release for distribution.There were no issues identified that would have impacted this event.There is no evidence to suggest a manufacturing defect caused or contributed to the reported event.Based on the information available, the most likely root cause is patient factors, including patient age at implant.The subject device is not available for evaluation as it remains implanted in the patient.Edwards will continue to review and monitor all reported events.Trends are monitored on a monthly basis and if action is required, appropriate investigation will be performed.H11: corrected data: corrected section h6 (type of investigation).
|