|
It was reported that a patient with a 25mm 3300tfx aortic valve underwent a valve-in-valve procedure after an implant duration of 11 years, 3 months due to moderate calcification and critical stenosis.The patient presented with symptoms of heart failure.The tavr and surgical leaflet modification was successfully performed with a 23mm 9755rsl valve.The patient was discharged home on pod #1.Per medical records, the patient presented to the hospital with acute systolic chf.Heart cath showed, moderately thicken and calcified aortic valve leaflets with critical aortic stenosis.Patient was worked up for pci/tavr and was transferred to another hospital for tavr procedure; cardiologist decided to perform a pci/stent ((b)(6) 2026) and discharged patient home.Tavr/viv was performed 8 days later.
|
|
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: g6, h2, h6: (investigation findings, investigation conclusions).The device history record (dhr) was not reviewed as the reported event does not allege a malfunction that could be related to an edwards manufacturing deficiency and/or one was not confirmed through investigation.Svd is an acquired condition, intrinsic to bioprosthetic valves, characterized by deterioration of the leaflets or supporting structures, leading to thickening, calcification, tearing, or disruption of the prosthetic valve materials.These changes result in valvular dysfunction manifesting as stenosis and/or regurgitation with a consequent drop in hemodynamic efficacy of the valve.Svd commonly occurs with a considerably increased rate after 10 years.Prior investigations and extensive literature review have shown that it is predominantly related to patient factors and implant duration rather than to manufacturing issues.There is no evidence to suggest a manufacturing defect caused or contributed to the reported event.Based on the information available, the most likely cause is patient factors, including an implant duration of 10 or more years.
|