Manufacturing review: as the lot number for the device was not provided, a manufacturing review could not be performed.Medical record review: patient presented with three week history of increasing shortness of breath and new onset hemoptysis.Ct chest showed a large pulmonary embolism in the right main pulmonary artery.Venous ultrasound of the bilateral extremities was (b)(6) for deep vein thrombosis.A vena cava filter was placed infrarenal.Patient was started on anticoagulation.Investigation summary: the device was not returned for evaluation.Images were not provided for review.Medical records were provided and reviewed.There was no specific deficiency alleged in the provided medical records.Therefore, the investigation is inconclusive for perforation and tilt, 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.
|
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 tilted and embedded in the wall of the ivc, and filter struts perforated into organs.The device has not been removed and there were no reported attempts made to retrieve the filter.The patient allegedly experienced bleeding; however, the current status of the patient is unknown.
|