| Model Number |
EVOLUTPRO-29-US |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Perivalvular Leak (1457); Inadequacy of Device Shape and/or Size (1583); Device Dislodged or Dislocated (2923); Patient Device Interaction Problem (4001)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Low Blood Pressure/ Hypotension (1914); Foreign Body In Patient (2687); Aortic Valve Insufficiency/ Regurgitation (4450)
|
| Date of Event |
03/26/2026
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that following the implant of a 29 millimeter (mm) transcatheter aortic valve, the valve dislodged.Subsequently, the valve was snared into the sinotubular junction (stj), and a 34 mm valve was implanted valve-in-valve.An additional valve was implanted in the ascending aortic arch in order to secure the 34 mm valve.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Continuation of d10: product id {envpro-16}; product lot/serial number {(b)(6)}; product type: {0195-heartvalves}; implant date {non-implantable} product id {evproplus-34}; product lot/serial number {(b)(6)}; product type: {0195-heartvalves}; implant date: {(b)(6) 2026}, explant date: {n/a} select patient information cannot be included in the regulatory report due to regional privacy regulations.Medtronic submits this report to comply with fda regulations 21 cfr parts 4 and 803.Medtronic has made reasonable efforts to provide as much relevant information as is available to the company as of the submission date of this report.This report does not constitute an admission or a conclusion by fda, medtronic, or its employees that the device, medtronic, or its employee caused or contributed to the event described in the report.Any required fields that are unpopulated are blank because the information is currently unknown or unavailable.Medtronic will submit a supplemental report if additional relevant information becomes known.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Image review: five intraprocedural fluoroscopic media files were submitted for review.Fluoroscopic valve load inspection images were not provided; therefore, confirmation of appropriate valve loading could not be performed.Based on the available evidence, the valve was observed to be displaced above the aortic annulus during the procedure and was subsequently snared above the sinotubular junction (image 1).The dislodgement event was not captured in the submitted media; therefore, the cause of the valve dislodgement could not be determined.Review of the available fluoroscopic images suggests that difficulty was encountered during advancement of the second delivery catheter system (dcs) (image 2).The dcs was ultimately advanced, and a second valve was implanted at an estimated depth of 0 mm at the non-coronary cusp (ncc) (image 3).Additional evidence indicates that a third valve was deployed above the dislodged valve (image 4).Updated: h6.Medtronic submits this report to comply with fda regulations 21 cfr parts 4 and 803.Medtronic has made reasonable efforts to provide as much relevant information as is available to the company as of the submission date of this report.This report does not constitute an admission or a conclusion by fda, medtronic, or its employees that the device, medtronic, or its employee caused or contributed to the event described in the report.Any required fields that are unpopulated are blank because the information is currently unknown or unavailable.Medtronic will submit a supplemental report if additional relevant information becomes known.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Additional information was received that a pre-implant balloon dilation was not performed.A non-medtronic guidewire was used for the procedure.The patient's anatomy had mild calcification and a large annulus, making anchoring difficult.The first valve deployment starting point was at the bottom of the pigtail catheter.Prior to dislodgement, the depth was approximately 0 mm on the non-coronary cusp (ncc).After dislodgement, the depth on the ncc was at least 20 mm with significant perivalvular leak and a persistent decrease in blood pressure.Subsequently, a third valve was implanted, primarily due to the severe dislodgement of the 29 mm valve in the ascending aorta, which was unable to anchor and continuously rotated, posing a high risk of dissection.Therefore, after detailed measurement, a 34 mm valve was implanted as an intra-valvular prosthesis within the 29 mm valve to stabilize the dislodged 29 mm va lve.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Updated data: b2.B5.H6.Additional codes.Medtronic submits this report to comply with fda regulations 21 cfr parts 4 and 803.Medtronic has made reasonable efforts to provide as much relevant information as is available to the company as of the submission date of this report.This report does not constitute an admission or a conclusion by fda, medtronic, or its employees that the device, medtronic, or its employee caused or contributed to the event described in the report.Any required fields that are unpopulated are blank because the information is currently unknown or unavailable.Medtronic will submit a supplemental report if additional relevant information becomes known.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Updated data: h6, h6.The codes present in section h6.Correspond to multiple components/products that comprise this reported event.Medtronic submits this report to comply with fda regulations 21 cfr parts 4 and 803.Medtronic has made reasonable efforts to provide as much relevant information as is available to the company as of the submission date of this report.This report does not constitute an admission or a conclusion by fda, medtronic, or its employees that the device, medtronic, or its employee caused or contributed to the event described in the report.Any required fields that are unpopulated are blank because the information is currently unknown or unavailable.Medtronic will submit a supplemental report if additional relevant information becomes known.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|