|
As reported by a field clinical specialist (fcs), during a tavr procedure with a 23mm sapien 3 ultra resilia valve, a bent tine was observed on the nc side of the thv before deployment.Implanter chose to slowly deploy and the tine mostly straightened out and deployment/implant was a success.It was suggested that the crimped valve interacted with the pigtail catheter.The sheath and delivery system were removed as a single unit.Per additional information provided by the fcs, there were difficulties during the crimping phase.The patient had mild tortuosity, and mild calcification.
|
|
A supplemental mdr is being submitted for additional information from a product investigation.The following sections of this report have been updated: b4, g3, g6, h2, and h6.Frame damage was unable to be confirmed due to unavailability of returned device nor relevant imagery provided.A review of the dhr review did not provide any indication that a manufacturing non-conformance contributed to the complaint event.A review of ifu/training materials revealed no deficiencies.A review of edwards lifesciences risk management documentation was performed for this case.Per review, no evidence of product non-conformances or labeling/ifu inadequacies were identified in the evaluation.As reported, ''during a tavr procedure with a 23mm sapien 3 ultra resilia valve, a bent tine was observed on the nc side of the thv before deployment.It was suggested that the crimped valve interacted with the pigtail catheter.'' additional response from fcs also reported that ''the resistance was after alignment in the descending.'' in this case, following valve alignment, a non-edwards device (pigtail catheter) interacted with the crimped valve on the delivery system.It is possible that a frame strut caught on the pigtail catheter.If excessive force was applied during this interaction, it could have resulted in the reported bent frame.As such, available information suggests that procedural factors (interaction with non-edwards device) may have contributed to the complaint event.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.
|