| Model Number |
9-PFO-2518 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Malposition of Device (2616)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
12/03/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The device is not returning for evaluation.Investigation is not yet complete.A follow-up report will be submitted with all additional relevant information.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that on (b)(6) 2025, a 25-18mm amplatzer talisman pfo occluder was chosen to implant using a 9f amplatzer talisman delivery system.Pfo closure was attempted with the 25 mm talisman device under fluoroscopic guidance.Following the final contrast injection, an abnormality in the device position and shape was observed.An ice guiding catheter was utilized to further assess device placement.Ice imaging confirmed that the device was deployed within the pfo tunnel and was not adequately covering both sides of the septum.The images also indicated a long pfo tunnel measuring greater than 20 mm.The device was snared and retrieved.It was noted that the device malposition occured due to the device was mis-sized.The mis-sized was determined when retrieving the first device.The tunnel length was then suspected to be longer than expected.After the device was completely retrieved, the tunnel was measured on ice and measured 20mm.They concluded that the 25mm pfo device was too small.Subsequently, the pfo was closed using a 35 mm amplatzer talisman device.The replacement device was implanted successfully and remained implanted.No leak was observed in the patient.The patient remained hemodynamically stable throughout the procedure.There was no clinically significant delay in procedure and no adverse patient effects.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
An event of malposition of device was reported.A returned device assessment could not be performed as the device was not returned for analysis.A cine review was completed and concluded one echo image shows the occluder inappropriately deployed with discs not situated on either side of the septum.The device history record was reviewed to ensure that each manufacturing and inspection operation was performed, and the product met all defined manufacturing specifications.There were no complaints associated with any other devices from the lot.Based on the available information, the cause for the reported malposition of device is likely related to the device being mis-sized (to small), however this cannot be determined.An unexpected medical intervention was a result of case-specific circumstances, as the device was snared.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to labeling design or manufacturing of the device.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that on (b)(6) 2025, a 25-18mm amplatzer talisman pfo occluder was chosen to implant using a 9f amplatzer talisman delivery system.Pfo closure was attempted with the 25 mm talisman device under fluoroscopic guidance.Following the final contrast injection, an abnormality in the device position and shape was observed.An ice guiding catheter was utilized to further assess device placement.Ice imaging confirmed that the device was deployed within the pfo tunnel and was not adequately covering both sides of the septum.The images also indicated a long pfo tunnel measuring greater than 20 mm.The device was snared and retrieved.It was noted that the device was not positioned properly due to the device was mis-sized.The mis-sized was determined when retrieving the first device.The tunnel length was then suspected to be longer than expected.After the device was completely retrieved, the tunnel was measured on ice and measured 20mm.They concluded that the 25mm pfo device was too small.Subsequently, the pfo was closed using a 35 mm amplatzer talisman device.The replacement device was implanted successfully and remained implanted.No leak was observed in the patient.The patient remained hemodynamically stable throughout the procedure.There was no clinically significant delay in procedure and no adverse patient effects.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|