Patient received an implant on (b)(6) 2010 via the right common femoral vein due to pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.Patient is alleging the device has been in place "more than 90 days", "too risky to attempt retrieval", "extreme anxiety and panic".Without proving further details.
|
It has not been possible to further investigate or evaluate this alleged event based on the limited information provided to date.Cook will reopen its investigation if further information is received warranting supplementation in accordance with 21 c.F.R.803.56.Filter retrieval is occasionally difficult.This is well-known from published scientific literature where filter retrievals are referred to as simple vs.Complex.Several case reports published in scientific literature describe complex cases with successful endovascular filter retrievals using additional, advanced techniques.It is unknown if the reported extreme anxiety and panic are directly related to the filter and unable to identify a corresponding failure mode at this point in time.There is 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.
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unavailable, or unchanged.Investigation: investigation is reopened due to additional information provided.The following allegations have been investigated: vena cava (vc) perforation, physical limitation.The reported allegations have been further investigated based on the information provided to date.Filter interacts with ivc wall, e.G.Penetration/perforation/embedment.This may be either symptomatic or asymptomatic.Potential causes may include improper deployment; and (or) excessive force or manipulations near an in-situ filter (e.G., a surgical or endovascular procedure in the vicinity of a filter).Potential adverse events that may occur include, but are not limited to, the following: vascular trauma, vena cava perforation, vena cava penetration.Unknown if the reported physical limitation is directly related to the filter and unable to identify a corresponding failure mode at this point in time.20 devices in lot.No other complaints have been reported against the lot.The associated work order was reviewed.No related/relevant notes were documented.The device is manufactured and inspected according to specifications.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.Cook will reopen its investigation if further information is received warranting supplementation in accordance with 21 c.F.R.803.56.This report includes information known at this time.A follow-up report will be submitted should additional relevant information become available.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803 and is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement contained herein is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned, that a death or serious injury occurred, nor that any cook device caused, contributed to, or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|
Patient received an implant on (b)(6) 2010 via the right common femoral vein due to pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.Patient is alleging the device has been in place "more than 90 days", "too risky to attempt retrieval", "extreme anxiety and panic".Without proving further details.
|