|
Catalog Number MD800F |
Device Problems
Migration or Expulsion of Device (1395); Extrusion (2934); Patient Device Interaction Problem (4001)
|
Patient Problems
Abdominal Pain (1685); Thrombosis (2100); No Consequences Or Impact To Patient (2199)
|
Event Date 09/15/2017 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Manufacturing review: as the lot number for the device was not provided, a manufacturing review could not be performed.Investigation summary: the device was not returned for evaluation.Images and medical records were not provided for review.Therefore, the investigation is inconclusive for perforation and migration as no objective evidence has been provided to confirm any alleged deficiency with the filter.Based upon the available information, the definitive root cause is unknown.Labeling review: a review of product labeling documents (e.G.Procedural instructions, indications, warnings, precautions, cautions, possible complications, contraindications, and unit label) showed that the product labeling is adequate.The information provided by bard represents all of the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant / reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bard.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported through the litigation process that some time post vena cava filter deployment the filter perforated into the duodenum and migrated.There were no reported attempts made to retrieve the filter.The status of the patient is unknown.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
H10: manufacturing review: a device history record review could not be performed as the lot number is unknown.Investigation summary: the device was not returned for evaluation.The medical records included images.The image review was documented in the medical records.Medical records were provided and reviewed.Bard meridian filter was implanted for patient due to deep vein thrombosis.Approximately five years and two months post filter deployment, computed tomography (ct) revealed that each of the 6 filter struts demonstrates minimal excursion external to the inferior vena cava margin, 2mm.An anterior strut abuts the posterior wall of the third portion of the duodenum.Eventually two months later, another computed tomography (ct) revealed that there was presence of high density and surrounding stranding, indicating extensive venous thrombosis involving the common femoral vein, external and internal iliac veins, and inferior vena cava to the level of the filter.Therefore, the investigation is confirmed for perforation of the inferior vena cava (ivc).However, the investigation is inconclusive for filter migration.Based upon the available information, the definitive root cause is unknown.Labeling review: a review of product labeling documents (e.G.Procedural instructions, indications, warnings, precautions, cautions, possible complications, contraindications, and unit label) showed that the product labeling is adequate.H11:section a through f - the information provided by bd represents all of the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant / reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bd.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported through the litigation process that a vena cava filter was placed in a patient after being diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism.At some time post filter deployment, it was alleged that the filter migrated to heart and struts perforated.The device has not been removed and there were no reported attempts made to retrieve the filter.The patient reportedly experienced abdominal pain; however, the current status of the patient is unknown.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|