|
Catalog Number DL900J |
Device Problem
Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
Patient Problem
Aneurysm (1708)
|
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 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.
|
|
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 patient experienced a stroke and blockages in the brain while the ivc filter was in place.The device was removed percutaneously.The current status of the patient is unknown.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Manufacturing review: a lot history review was performed.This is the only complaint to date for this lot number.Therefore, a device history record (dhr) review is not required.Investigation summary: the device was not returned for evaluation.Medical records were not provided for review.Therefore, the investigation is inconclusive 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.Additional narrative: description of event or problem,device identification (expiry date: 12/2017),date received by mfr.Brand name,device identification.
|
|
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 patient experienced a stroke and blockages in the brain while the ivc filter was in place.The device was removed percutaneously.The current status of the patient is unknown.New information: 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.No alleged deficiency with the filter was reported.The device was removed percutaneously.The current status of the patient is unknown.
|
|
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 patient experienced a stroke and blockages in the brain while the ivc filter was in place.The device was removed percutaneously.The current status of the patient is unknown.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
H10: manufacturing review: the device history records have been reviewed with special attention to the raw materials, subassemblies, manufacturing process, and quality control testing.This lot met all release criteria.There was nothing found to indicate there was a manufacturing related cause for this event.Investigation summary: the device was not returned for evaluation.Medical records were provided and reviewed.There were no device deficiencies identified within the medical records.Therefore, the investigation is inconclusive 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.H10: (expiry date: 12/2017).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.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|