|
Edwards received notification of a transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (ttvr) procedure involving the evoque system.An effusion was noted as soon as the delivery system (ds) crossed the valve.There was a 1cm laceration noted at the rv apex.The patient was converted to an unplanned thoracic or cardiac surgery.The patient was stable after the right ventricle was repaired.However, the patient developed disseminated intravascular coagulation (dic) overnight, the family chose to withdraw support and the patient expired.Dic was confirmed to be the cause of death.During index procedure, the cath lab staff were managing the wire with ic direction.No pigtail was used.The wire curl with located post apex, in the pocket between paps.The wire was clear of anatomy during wire check.Wire push was not used for height.No evidence of wire mismanagement, wire curled around anatomy, excessive pressure on wire curl, or wire deformation or kinking.
|
|
The following sections were updated/corrected/added: b4, g3, g6, h2, h6, and h11.Additional type of investigation codes that were unable to be added in h6: labelling review.The complaint for delivery system and/or guidewire perforation of atrial/ventricular wall was confirmed with empirical evidence.The device history record review was completed, and this device passed all manufacturing and sterilization inspections.No nonconformances related to the complaint event were identified.Available information suggests that procedural manipulation in a trabeculated right ventricle contributed to the reported event.No device malfunction, delivery system deformation, or manufacturing defect was identified based on the information currently available.There was no documented change in delivery system position relative to the guidewire, and no procedural deviation, excessive force, or inappropriate manipulation was identified as a definitive initiating cause.While interaction between the delivery system and the rv apex in the presence of apical trabeculation and a pre existing effusion is considered a possible contributing mechanism, there is no direct procedural or imaging evidence confirming a specific causative interaction at the time of injury.Since no manufacturing non-conformances were found and no labeling, training, or ifu deficiencies were identified, no preventative or corrective actions were required.
|