The exact implant date is unknown; stated to be on or about (b)(6) 2009.The catalog number is unknown, if received it will be provided.Complaint conclusion: as reported, the patient underwent placement of an optease retrievable vena cava filter.The indication for the filter placement was not reported.At some point after the filter implantation, the patient underwent a computerized tomography (ct) scan that revealed that the filter had tilted and bent and was associated with perforation.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 optease retrievable vena cava filter is indicated for use in the prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism (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, filter bending 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.Altered shape of the device is a known potential event associated with use of the ivc filters, the ivc is a dynamic vessel subject to ongoing physical stressed and this and impact the shape of the filter struts over time.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.Perforation from removable filters is relatively common, and directly related to how long the filter has been in place.Studies have noted a greater than 80% perforation rate overall, with all filters imaged after 71 days from implantation revealing some level of perforation.Clinical factors that may have influenced the event 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.
|
As reported by the legal brief, the patient underwent placement of a optease vena cava filter.The filter subsequently malfunctioned and caused injury and damages including, but not limited to: ct scan showing specific evidence that the filter tilted, has perforated and has bending.As a direct and proximate result of these malfunctions, patient suffered life-threatening injuries and damages, and required extensive medical care and treatment.As a further proximate result, patient has suffered and will continue to suffer significant medical expenses, and pain and suffering, and other damages.
|