|
Patient was initially treated in 2013 for an emergent rupture.At an unknown date, the patient returned with an aneurysm growth and two bridges were implanted.At a later unknown date, the patient was treated again for an aneurysm growth with a medtronic device.On (b)(6) 2016 the patient underwent a complete reline with afx devices.The ct performed showed continued aneurysm growth and the physician noted a possible endoleak type ii.A re-intervention has not been scheduled at this time however, the physician plans to coil off the ima, thrombin and biogel.Patient condition is asymptomatic.
|
|
Based on the information received at the completion of the clinical evaluation, there were substantial evidence to support the following reported events: el 2 (multiple); no evidence of a secondary endovascular procedure.Cumulative knowledge informed by past assessments of similar complaints was applied to a review of the available medical information.There was no device-related issue, rather, there was a type ii endoleak from multiple areas: left lumbar artery, possibly the inferior mesenteric artery, and a rogue right renal accessory artery located near l2.These anatomical features and the inability to tolerate contrasted surveillance (cautionary product use) likely contributed to the eventual sac growth.No user-related contributing issues were identified.Procedure-related harms included: type ii endoleak.Associated clinical harms for this event included sac growth.Reportedly, there was a planned intervention to treat the endoleaks.To date, there were no reports of treatment or further negative patient sequelae, and the patient was asymptomatic.In addition, the review of manufacturing lot confirmed all devices met specifications prior to release.This complaint is not capa eligible at this time.The devices remain implanted in the patient and were not returned and no evaluation was completed.These types of events will be monitored and trended as part of the quality system.(b)(4).
|