Exemption number (b)(4).The device was not returned for evaluation.A review of the lot history record identified no manufacturing nonconformities issued to the reported lot.Based on the information reviewed, the reported pericardial effusion appears to be due to procedural circumstances/user technique; however, tissue damage was a cascading effect of the effusion.Additionally, the reported additional therapy/non-surgical treatment and hospitalization appears to be due to case specific circumstances as pericardiocentesis was performed and prolonged hospitalization occurred.The reported patient effects of pericardial effusion and mitral valve injury (tissue damage) as listed in the mitraclip system instructions for use (ifu) are a known possible complication associated with mitraclip procedures.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling.
|
This is being filed to report after the procedure, a pericardial effusion was noted.It was reported that this was a mitraclip procedure to treat mixed mitral regurgitation (mr) with a grade of 4.The septal puncture was difficult and there was difficulty getting a good height.A good puncture was managed at 2.3 cm above the annulus.The procedure was a little complicated and echocardiogram was suboptimal; however, the end results were good.Three clips were implanted reducing mr to 1.After the procedure, the patient suffered from pericardial effusion.The reason for the effusion was suspected due to the difficulty during the septal puncture, and the sgc might have stressed any small tear.Pericardiocentesis was performed.Hospitalization was prolonged and the patient remained stable with good mitraclip results.No additional information was provided.
|