|
The manufacturing and material records for the device involved in this event, as they pertain to the reported issue, were retrieved and reviewed by the manufacturer¿s quality engineering.The results confirmed that this prosthesis satisfied all required material, visual, and performance standards at the time of manufacture and release.The device involved in the reported event has been returned to the manufacturer and a follow-up report will be submitted upon completion of the investigation.
|
|
The manufacturer was notified of an intraoperative explant involving a perceval plus valve.The following provides a summary of all information currently available.A perceval plus valve pvf-m was attempted to be implanted in a female patient on (b)(6) 2026.During the procedure, a balloon dilatation was performed at 6 bars by another member of the surgical team.The primary surgeon was not directly involved in this step due to the complexity of the procedure but reported that the perfusionist confirmed the pressure used.Subsequently, the valve demonstrated central insufficiency, which led to the decision to explant the device.The patient underwent surgery for combined aortic valve disease (aortic insufficiency and aortic stenosis) along with coronary artery disease requiring bypass surgery.After implantation of the perceval valve, three physicians assessed the resulting valve performance.There was uncertainty among them regarding the severity of the central insufficiency.Intraoperative ultrasound suggested only mild insufficiency; however, due to the lack of consensus and concern over the valve function, the decision was made to proceed with explantation.Following explantation of the perceval valve, a sutured bioprosthetic valve (inspiris, 21 mm) was implanted.This decision was made to ensure a faster and safer conclusion to the surgical procedure.The operating surgeon reported that the patient had a notably short aortic root, which he considered the most probable contributing factor to the central insufficiency.He suggested that the valve may have shifted or ¿slipped¿ into the left sinus of valsalva.Despite this, the valve appeared to be well-positioned immediately after implantation, with good alignment of the valve ring against the aortic annulus.It was also noted that the patient had previously been deemed unsuitable for a transcatheter aortic valve implantation (tavi) due to the anatomical limitation of a short aortic root.
|