This additional information received on 31/jan/2018 as follows: patient received an implant on (b)(6) 2008 via the right common femoral vein due to upcoming bariatric surgery.Patient is alleging organ perforation, bleeding, anxiety, mental anguish and stress due to the device.Patient alleges that the device is unable to be retrieved.
|
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, ¿vc and organ (aorta) perforation, bleeding, anxiety, mental anguish, stress, unable to be removed." 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.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.Unknown if the reported anxiety, mental anguish and stress 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.
|