Occupation: other, senior counsel, litigation.Please note that the exact event date is unknown and the event date is the complaint awareness date.As reported, the patient underwent placement of a trapease vena cava filter.The indication for the filter placement was not reported.At some point after the filter implantation, the patient became aware that the filter had tilted and was associated with perforation, pulmonary embolism (pe), deep vein thrombosis (dvt), caval thrombosis and thromboembolism.The product was not returned for analysis and the sterile lot number has not been provided; therefore, no device analysis nor device history record review could be performed.The trapease vena cava filter is indicated for use in the prevention of recurrent pe via percutaneous placement in the inferior vena cava (ivc) for patients in which anticoagulants are contraindicated, anticoagulant therapy for thromboembolic disease has failed, emergency treatment following massive pe where anticipated benefits of conventional therapy are reduced or for chronic, recurrent pe where anticoagulant therapy has failed, or is contraindicated.The purpose of a vena cava filter is to catch thrombus from the lower extremities as it travels along normal blood flow patterns up towards the heart.Without images or procedural films for review, the reported filter tilt and perforation events could not be confirmed and the exact cause could not be determined.Ivc filter tilt has been associated with the anatomy of the vessel, specifically asymmetry and tortuousness.Additionally, the timing and mechanism of the filter tilt is unknown.It is unknown if the tilt contributed to the reported perforation.A review of the instructions for use (ifu) notes vessel damage such as intimal tears and perforation as procedural complications related to ivc filters.Studies have noted a greater than 80% perforation rate overall, with all filters imaged after 71 days from implantation revealing some level of perforation.Recurrent pe is a known potential complication of filter implantation and is listed in the instructions for use (ifu) as such.Based on the minimal information provided, it is not possible to draw a clinical conclusion or determine a root cause for the reported event.Clinical factors that may have influenced the event include the patient¿s pre-existing co-morbidities, pharmacological issues and lesion characteristics.Blood clots that develop in the veins of the leg or pelvis, may be related to a condition called dvt.A dvt occurs when a blood clot forms in a deep vein and is most common in the deep veins of the lower leg (calf) and can spread up to the veins in the thigh.Large thrombus within the vena cava or lower extremities may impede perfusion and cause venous insufficiency.Placement of a vena cava filter is not a cure for dvt nor does it prevent the formation of dvt or other clots (thrombosis).There is no medical evidence of a causal relationship between the vena cava filter and the formation of new dvt and thrombosis.These events do not represent a malfunction of the device.Thromboembolism, blood clots and thrombosis and/or occlusion within the device or within the ivc and/or vasculature do not represent a device malfunction.Clinical factors that may have influenced these events include the patient¿s pre-existing co-morbidities, pharmacological issues and lesion characteristics.Given the limited information available for review, there is nothing to suggest that a malfunction in the design and manufacturing process of the device; therefore, no corrective action will be taken.Should additional information become available, the file will be updated accordingly.Please note that this is the initial/final report for this product.
|
As reported by the legal brief, the patient underwent placement of a trapease vena cava filter.The report states that the filter subsequently malfunctioned and caused injury and damage to the patient including, but not limited to tilt, perforation, pulmonary embolism (pe), deep vein thrombosis (dvt), caval thrombosis, thrombosis/embolism.As a direct and proximate result of these malfunctions, the patient suffered life-threatening injuries and damages, and required extensive medical care and treatment.As a further proximate result, the patient has suffered and will continue to suffer significant medical expenses, and pain and suffering, and other damages.
|