|
Patient is a (b)(6) male, (bmi 52.9) with bilateral lower extremity lymphedema.On (b)(6) 2017, his physician prescribed pneumatic compression treatment for use in the home to treat his chronic lymphedema.Apparently, no duplex examination was performed to rule out venous disease in this morbidly obese man with a family history of thrombo-embolic disease.The prescription indicates that the patient had no current contraindications precluding treatment.The physician requested that the patient receive a demonstration of the equipment.The demonstration was conducted, without incident, on (b)(6).The demonstration documentation reflects that there were no current contraindications.The manufacturer shipped the device on (b)(6); the patient was trained by a clinician in the home on (b)(6) 2017.The training session was uneventful.The next morning, the patient felt fatigued but conducted his treatment.Patient continued to feel unwell and had increased difficulty with mobility after treatment.By that evening, patient experienced dyspnea and diaphoresis.The patient went to the emergency room and was found via x-ray to have a large saddle pulmonary embolism.The patient was admitted to the hospital and was treated with tissue plasminogen activator (tpa).The patient received inpatient iv anticoagulation treatment for one week.There were no further reported complications to the patient.The prescriber states patient had no previous history of deep vein thrombosis but did have a family history of clots.A duplex ultrasound had not been conducted due to no signs or complaints by patient consistent with possible dvt prior to the event.The physician was unable to state whether the use of the pneumatic compression device caused or contributed to the event.Prescriber has advised patient to discontinue device treatment.
|