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

Model Number	9750TFX26A
Medical Device Problem Codes	Calcified (1077); Perivalvular Leak (1457); Insufficient Device Problem Information (3190)
Health Effect - Clinical Codes	Dyspnea (1816); Insufficient Information (4580)
Date of Event	03/09/2026
Type of Reportable Event	Serious Injury
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 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
As reported by edwards implant patient registry (ipr), approximately five (5) years, five (5) months, and twenty-one (21) days post transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (tavr) procedure with a 26 mm sapien 3 ultra valve, the valve was explanted and replaced with a 25 mm surgical valve.The cause of the valve explant is unknown at this time.No additional information was provided.
Event or Problem Description
As reported by edwards implant patient registry (ipr), approximately five (5) years, five (5) months, and twenty-one (21) days post transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (tavr) procedure with a 26 mm sapien 3 ultra valve, the valve was explanted and replaced with a 25 mm surgical valve.Medical records were received for evaluation.According to the medical records, the patient presented recently with increasing shortness of breath.An echocardiogram performed approximately five (5) years, one (1) month, and twenty-nine (29) days post tavr procedure showed severe aortic stenosis of the tavr valve that was well-seated with a valve area of 0.9 cm2, a mean gradient of 50 mmhg, moderate paravalvular leak (pvl) and no obvious aortic regurgitation.A computed tomography (ct) was also performed, and it revealed the presence of calcium in the leaflets of the tavr valve.Approximately three (3) months and twenty-three (23) days later, the patient underwent an aortic valve replacement procedure during which the transcatheter heart valve (thv) was explanted and replaced with a 25 mm surgical valve.Prior to the procedure, the pre-operative diagnosis was stenosis of the prosthetic aortic valve.The patient tolerated the procedure without complication and was transported to the cardiovascular intensive care unit (cvicu) in stable condition.
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
A supplemental report is being submitted for correction and to include additional information from the medical records and from the investigation.The following sections of this report have been corrected/updated: a2 (age at time of the event), b5 (describe event or problem), b7 (other relevant history, including preexisting medical conditions), h6 (health effect - clinical code, device code, type of investigation, investigation findings, investigation conclusions) and h11 (additional narrative/data).Per the instructions for use (ifu), structural valve deterioration (wear, fracture, calcification, leaflet tear/tearing from the stent posts, leaflet retraction, suture line disruption of components of a prosthetic valve, thickening, stenosis), is a potential adverse event associated with bioprosthetic heart valves.Per a technical summary written by edwards lifesciences, calcific degeneration is a common cause of bioprosthetic heart valve failures.Many factors contribute to the onset and propagation of calcification.These include patient factors (age, disease state, pharmacological intervention, etc.), mechanical stress related to the valve's hemodynamic performance, and glutaraldehyde fixation of tissue.Of these, the fixation process is a relatively minor contributor to calcification for edwards' tissue valves due to subsequent anti-calcification treatments during manufacturing.Though numerous studies have been conducted on preventive calcification strategies in bioprosthetic heart valves, the causes of calcification are not fully understood and there are still no mechanisms or medical therapies which fully prevent bioprosthesis from calcifying.In this case, there was no allegation or indication a manufacturing non-conformance contributed to the valve calcification that required re-intervention.Although a definitive root cause was unable to be determined, the event could be related to the mechanisms described above.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.Regarding the paravalvular leak (pvl), 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.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 a product malfunction contributed to the pvl that required re-intervention.Although a definitive root cause was unable to be determined, the event could be related to the mechanisms described above.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: 24957316
• Report Number: 2015691-2026-14593
• Device Sequence Number: 10029851
• Product Code: NPT
• UDI-Device Identifier: 00690103201338
• UDI-Public: (01)00690103201338(17)220703
• Combination Product (Y/N): N
• Initial Reporter State: SC
• Initial Reporter Country: US
• PMA/510(K) Number: P140031
• Number of Events Summarized: 1
• Summary Report (Y/N): N
• Device Implanted Year: 2020
• Device Explanted Year: 2026
• 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): 05/18/2026

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?: No
• Operator of Device: Health Professional
• Device Expiration Date: 07/03/2022
• Device Model Number: 9750TFX26A
• 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: 04/01/2026
• Supplement Date Received by Manufacturer: 04/24/2026
• Initial Report FDA Received Date: 04/22/2026
• Supplement Report FDA Received Date: 05/18/2026
• Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? (Y/N): No
• Date Device Manufactured: 07/03/2020
• 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: 74 YR
• Patient Sex: Male