MAUDE Adverse Event Report: EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES EDWARDS SAPIEN 3 ULTRA TRANSCATHETER HEART VALVE; AORTIC VALVE, PROSTHESIS, PERCUTANEOUSLY DELIVERED

Model Number	9750TFX20A
Medical Device Problem Codes	Perivalvular Leak (1457); Insufficient Device Problem Information (3190); Device Stenosis (4066)
Health Effect - Clinical Codes	Dyspnea (1816); Insufficient Information (4580)
Date of Event	08/13/2025
Type of Reportable Event	Serious Injury
Event or Problem Description
As reported by implant patient registry, approximately two years and two months post implantation of a 20mm sapien 3 ultra valve in the aortic position, the device was explanted and replaced with a surgical valve.The reason for the valve explantation is unknown at this time.
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
Per the instructions for use (ifu), non-emergent reoperation, emergency cardiac surgery, reoperation, device migration or malposition requiring intervention and device explant are listed as potential risks associated with the device and transcatheter valve replacement (tvr) procedure.The ifu cautions that long-term durability has not been established for the valve.Regular medical follow-up is advised to evaluate valve performance.Accelerated deterioration of the valve due to calcific degeneration may occur in children, adolescents, or young adults and in patients with an altered calcium metabolism.Valve recipients should be maintained on anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy, except when contraindicated, as determined by their physician.This device has not been tested for use without anticoagulation.A review of edwards lifesciences risk management documentation was performed for this case.The reported event is an anticipated risk of the transcatheter heart valve procedure, additional assessment of this adverse event is not required at this time.Valve reintervention may be due to valve dysfunction (e.G., severe, or clinically significant paravalvular leak, central leak, significant malposition, early/late endocarditis, thrombosis, structural valve deterioration or degeneration) and/or other reasons unrelated to the edwards devices (e.G., treatment of other patient comorbidities).During the manufacturing process, all sapien valves (all models) are 100% visually inspected for defects and 100% tested under physiological backpressure conditions prior to release for distribution.Therefore, it is highly unlikely that a manufacturing defect or device malfunction contributed to the event.In this case, despite multiple investigational attempts, it was not possible to obtain additional details regarding this event.Due to limited information, a definitive root cause was unable to be determined at this time.At the time of this report, the information available does not reasonably suggest there was a malfunction of the edwards device or that the use or miss-use of the device caused or contributed to the event.There is no allegation of deficiencies related to the identity, quality, durability, reliability, safety, labeling effectiveness, or performance of this edward device.Should additional information become available, the information will be reviewed, and the file updated accordingly.The ifu and training manuals have been reviewed and no inadequacies have been identified with regards to warnings, contraindications, and the directions/conditions for the successful use of the device.Complaint histories for all reported events are reviewed against trending control limits monthly, and any excursions above the control limits are assessed and documented as part of this monthly review.As such, neither a product risk assessment, nor corrective or preventative actions are required at this time.
Event or Problem Description
Per medical record review, approximately 2 years and 2 months later, the valve was explanted due to a large paravalvular defect near the left noncoronary commissure corresponding to an aortic insufficiency jet observed on preoperative tee.Intraoperative tee noted moderate aortic valve stenosis with a mean gradient of 13 mmhg; ava was not measured.The patient underwent left atrial appendage occlusion, ascending aorta replacement for aneurysm, and aortic valve replacement following root enlargement to accommodate a 23 mm valve and reinforce thinning subannular tissue identified after calcium debridement.Pathology revealed pliable leaflets without tears, vegetations, perforations, or calcification, with only mild pannus formation considered non-significant.
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
Update to b1,b5 and b7.The events reported are anticipated in the risk management documentation for transcatheter heart valve procedures.A previous investigation into this type of event is captured in an edwards lifesciences technical summary and applies to this complaint.Additional assessment of the failure mode(s) is not required at this time.Due to the unavailability of the complaint device, engineering was unable to perform any visual inspection, functional testing, or dimensional analysis.Per the technical summary, the instructions for use (ifu), training manuals and current risk mitigations have been reviewed.No inadequacies have been identified with regards to warnings, contraindications, and the directions/conditions for the successful use of the device.Through extensive complaint investigations, stenosis/increased gradient events for the s3, s3u, s3ur valves post-implantation have not been associated with device malfunctions or manufacturing nonconformances.Rather, the root cause for these events have historically been due to patient factors (atherosclerosis, thrombosis, endocarditis, rheumatic fever, pannus formation) and/or procedural factors (under-deployed valve, valve size selection, patient-prosthesis mismatch).The reported event of stenosis was confirmed based on medical record.As reported, "intraoperative tee noted moderate aortic valve stenosis with a mean gradient of 13 mmhg; ava was not measured." available information suggests that patient factors (pre-existing comorbidities) likely contributed to the event as the patient had vast comorbidities (e.G.Hyperlipidemia, hypothyroidism, etc.), which are known factors that may increase the risk of early valve degeneration with stenosis.Complaint histories for all reported events are reviewed against trending control limits on a monthly basis, and any excursions above the control limits are assessed and documented as part of this monthly review.Since no edwards product defects or labeling deficiencies were identified, no corrective or preventative action is required.Per the instructions for use (ifu), paravalvular leak (pvl) is a known potential adverse event associated with bioprosthetic heart valves and the transcatheter valve replacement (tvr) procedure.Paravalvular leak refers to blood flowing through a channel between the structure of the implanted valve/pre-stent and the landing zone, as a result of a lack of appropriate sealing of the valve to the target site.Some pvl is not uncommon post-deployment.Many cases are mild to moderate, and either resolve over time or do not cause symptoms.Others may be more clinically significant and require intervention.The patient screening manual and the procedure didactic identify several procedural and anatomical factors which could contribute to pvl, including device malposition, inaccurate measurement of the landing zone, uneven distribution of calcium on the landing zone, bulky or severe calcification, an elliptical annulus shape, and valve under-sizing.The mechanism behind worsening or late pvl is not well understood but may be related to cardiac remodeling.Edwards extensively trains physicians before they are qualified to use the sapien transcatheter heart valves (all models).The device training manuals instructs the operator on proper imaging screening requirements, including the use of good quality echocardiography and/or computed tomography (ct) to appropriately measure the landing zone, assess the content and distribution of calcium, and other patient anatomical factors.Multiple imaging modalities should be considered during valve size selection.Contraindications, important considerations when assessing the valve, and choosing the proper transcatheter heart valve are also discussed.The device training manuals also instruct the operator on proper positioning and deployment of the valve, including patients screening and procedural considerations.Device preparation, approach, deployment, imaging, procedure-specific training manuals, and proctored procedures are also included.In this case, there was no allegation or indication that a product malfunction contributed to this adverse event.Investigation results suggest/indicate that a large bar of calcium in the center of the non-coronary cusp along the annulus may have caused or contributed to this event.A review of edwards lifesciences risk management documentation was performed for this case.The reported event is an anticipated risk of the transcatheter heart valve procedure, additional assessment of this adverse event is not required at this time.The ifu and training manuals have been reviewed, and no inadequacies have been identified with regards to warnings, contraindications, and the directions/conditions for the successful use of the device.Complaint histories for all reported events are reviewed against trending control limits monthly, and any excursions above the control limits are assessed and documented as part of this monthly review.As such, neither a product risk assessment, nor corrective or preventative actions are required at this time.

• Brand Name: EDWARDS SAPIEN 3 ULTRA TRANSCATHETER HEART VALVE
• Common Device Name: AORTIC VALVE, PROSTHESIS, PERCUTANEOUSLY DELIVERED
• Manufacturer (Section D): EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES; 1 edwards way; irvine CA 92614
• Manufacturer (Section G): EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES; 1 edwards way; irvine CA 92614
• Manufacturer Contact: renee van dorne ; 1 edwards way; irvine, CA 92614 ; 9492506385
• MDR Report Key: 23888145
• Report Number: 2015691-2025-10554
• Device Sequence Number: 18547361
• Product Code: NPT
• UDI-Device Identifier: 00690103201314
• UDI-Public: (01)00690103201314(17)260125
• Combination Product (Y/N): N
• Initial Reporter State: OH
• Initial Reporter Country: US
• PMA/510(K) Number: P140031
• Number of Events Summarized: 1
• Summary Report (Y/N): N
• Device Implanted Year: 2023
• Device Explanted Year: 2025
• Serviced by Third Party (Y/N): Unknown
• Reporter Type: Manufacturer
• Report Source: Health Professional,User Facility,Company Representative
• Initial Reporter Occupation: Physician
• Type of Report: Initial,Followup
• Report Date (Section B): 01/19/2026

1 Device was Involved in the Event

1 Patient was Involved in the Event

• Is this an Adverse Event Report?: Yes
• Is this a Product Problem Report?: Yes
• Operator of Device: Health Professional
• Device Expiration Date: 01/25/2026
• Device Model Number: 9750TFX20A
• Was Device Available for Evaluation?: No
• Is the Reporter a Health Professional?: Yes
• Was the Report Sent to FDA?: No
• Type of Report(Section G): Thirty-Day
• Initial Date Received by Manufacturer: 12/12/2025
• Supplement Date Received by Manufacturer: 12/26/2025
• Initial Report FDA Received Date: 12/24/2025
• Supplement Report FDA Received Date: 01/19/2026
• Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? (Y/N): No
• Date Device Manufactured: 01/26/2023
• Is the Device Labeled for Single Use? (Y/N): Yes
• Is This a Single-Use Device that was Reprocessed and Reused on a Patient? (Y/N): No
• Usage of Device: Initial
• Patient Sequence Number: 1
• Outcome Attributed to Adverse Event: Required Intervention
• Patient Age: 80 YR
• Patient Sex: Female