Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unavailable or unchanged.Additional information: investigation -it has not been possible to further investigate or evaluate this alleged event based on the limited information provided to date via the operative note stating 'tulip, pe, dvt, vc perforation'.Cook will reopen its investigation if further information is received warranting supplementation in accordance with 21 c.F.R.803.56.Vena cava wall perforation is a known potential complication of vena cava filters.Both symptomatic and asymptomatic events have been reported.Among other causes, vena cava wall perforation may inadvertently be initiated by improper deployment, excessive force or manipulations near an implanted filter (e.G., a surgical procedure in the vicinity of a filter) and (or) procedures that involve other devices being passed through an in situ filter.There is a current debate in the published scientific literature on a differentiation between ivc wall perforation with and without clinical sequelae.E.G.Filter legs may be outside the contrast lumen on imaging without actually perforating the ivc wall (known as tenting) and with no clinical sequelae.In contrast, perforation of adjacent organs is reported with clinical sequelae.Pe is a known risk in relation to filter implant reported in the published scientific literature.Also, it is reported that the pulmonary embolism in some cases may originate from upper extremities instead of lower extremity veins.With all filters, there is some risk of further pulmonary embolism.Unknown if the reported peripheral vein thrombosis is directly related to the filter and unable to identify a corresponding failure mode at this time.No evidence to suggest that this device was not manufactured according to specifications and nothing indicates that the filter did not perform as intended, e.G.Intended for the prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism (pe) via placement in the vena cava.
|