|
Patient allegedly received an implant on (b)(6) 2010 via the right common femoral vein due to history of deep vein thrombosis (dvt) and pulmonary embolism (pe).Patient is alleging migration and vena cava perforation.The patient further alleges "can't be removed - too risky; dvt and pe after implant" and "no longer can complete strenuous activity, exercises for more than 30 minutes.Excessive standing or walking is impossible," as well as stress.Report from ct (computed tomography): "an ivc (greenfield) filter is present, approximately 3.9 cm below the level of the left renal vein, with several of the anterior and posterior and left and right struts beyond the wall of the ivc lumen.A strut that is third from the left origin is bent upward, with a primarily horizontal orientation; and the distal end of this strut has penetrated/perforated the right wall of the distal abdominal aorta, extending within the right side of aortic lumen by 6.1 mm.No periaortic leakage or abnormal soft tissue is seen on the current study.The remaining lvc filter struts do not penetrate adjacent vascular or abdominal structures.The remaining structures of the ivc filter are not fractured or displaced.No migrated fragments is seen.".
|
|
H6 device code(s): appropriate term/code not available (3191) was selected for the alleged device perforation.Investigation: investigation is reopened due to additional information provided.The reported allegations have been further investigated based on the information provided to date.The following allegations have been investigated: pulmonary embolism, vena cava /aorta perforation, deep vein thrombus, unable to remove, migration, bent strut, physical limitations, stress.New pe as a reported complication, is a known risk in relation to filter implant and is well documented in the clinical literature and in clinical practice guidelines.This is supported by the clinical evidence report established to assess available clinical data to identify and evaluate the clinical safety and performance of the cook vena cava filters.Potential adverse events that may occur include, but are not limited to, the following: pulmonary embolism.Filter interacts with ivc wall, e.G.Penetration/perforation/embedment.This may be either symptomatic or asymptomatic.Potential causes may include improper deployment; and (or) excessive force or manipulations near an in-situ filter (e.G., a surgical or endovascular procedure in the vicinity of a filter).Potential adverse events that may occur include, but are not limited to, the following: trauma to adjacent structures, vascular trauma, vena cava perforation, vena cava penetration.Ivc occlusion/ thrombosis, new dvt, ivc stenosis as a reported complication, is a known risk in relation to filter implant and is well documented in the clinical literature and in clinical practice guidelines.This is supported by the clinical evidence report established to assess available clinical data to identify and evaluate the clinical safety and performance of the cook vena cava filters.Potential adverse events that may occur include, but are not limited to, the following: vena cava occlusion or thrombosis, vena cava stenosis, deep vein thrombosis.Physician practice guidelines and published guidance from regulatory agencies recommend that patients with indwelling filters undergo routine follow-up.The risks/benefits of filter retrieval should be considered for each patient during follow-up.Once protection from pe is no longer necessary, filter retrieval should be considered.Filter retrieval should be attempted when feasible and clinically indicated.Filter retrieval is a patient-specific, clinically complex decision; the decision to remove a filter should be based on each patient¿s individual risk/benefit profile (e.G., a patient¿s continued need for protection from pe compared to their experience with and (or) ongoing risk of experiencing filter-related complications).For all retrievable ivc filters, retrieval becomes more challenging with time, and this is commonly due to encapsulation of the filter legs or hook (in a tilted filter) by tissue ingrowth.The filter is designed to be retrieved with the günther tulip vena cava filter retrieval set.It may also be retrieved with the cloversnare® vascular retriever.Cook has not performed testing to evaluate the safety or effectiveness of filter retrieval using other retrieval systems or techniques.The published clinical literature includes descriptions of alternative techniques for filter retrieval; use of these techniques varies according to physician experience, patient anatomy, and filter position.The safety or effectiveness of these alternative retrieval techniques has not been established.Specific for ¿embedded¿ a filter that is embedded in the wall of the ivc may be difficult to retrieve.For all retrievable ivc filters, retrieval becomes more challenging with time, and this is commonly due to encapsulation of the filter legs or hook (in a tilted filter) by tissue ingrowth.Filter or filter fragment migration and (or) embolization (e.G., movement to the heart or lungs) has been reported.Filter or filter fragment movement has occurred in both the cranial and caudal direction and may be either symptomatic or asymptomatic.Potential causes may include filter placement in ivcs with diameters smaller or larger than those specified in these instructions for use; improper deployment; deployment into thrombus; dislodgement due to large thrombus burdens; and (or) excessive force or manipulations near an in situ filter (e.G., a surgical or endovascular procedure in the vicinity of a filter).Potential adverse events that may occur include, but are not limited to, the following: filter migration, trauma to adjacent structures.Unknown if the reported bent strut, physical limitations, and stress are directly related to the filter and unable to identify a corresponding failure mode at this point in time.Catalog number and lot number are unknown; however, there is 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.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.Cook will reopen its investigation if further information is received warranting supplementation in accordance with 21 c.F.R.803.56.This report includes information known at this time.A follow-up medwatch report will be submitted if additional relevant information become available.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803.This report is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement made in it is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned, that a death or serious injury occurred, or that any cook device caused or contributed to, or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|
