Patient [pt] allegedly received an implant on (b)(6) 2012 via the right femoral vein due to high-risk deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism with planned bilateral total knee resection, replacement.[pt] is alleging vena cava perforation, anxiety, and depression.
|
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 ¿gunther tulip-vena cava perforation, anxiety, and depression".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.Unknown if the reported anxiety and depression are directly related to the filter and unable to identify a corresponding failure mode at this point in 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.
|