The previous mdr was submitted by (b)(6) under manufacturer report reference number 3002808486-2019-00643.Additional information provided determined that this device was manufactured by cook inc (cinc).With the submission of this initial report, cinc informs that all future submissions regarding this complaint will be handled under manufacturer report number referenced in g9 of this initial medwatch report.Occupation: non-healthcare professional.Investigation is reopened due to additional information provided.The reported allegations have been further investigated based on the information provided to date.Filter tilt has been reported.Potential causes may include filter placement in ivcs with diameters larger than those specified in these instructions for use; improper deployment; manipulations near an implanted filter (e.G., a surgical or endovascular procedure in the vicinity of a filter); and (or) a failed retrieval attempt.Excessive filter tilt may contribute to difficult or failed retrieval; vena cava wall penetration/perforation; and (or) result in loss of filter efficiency.Potential adverse events that may occur include, but are not limited to, the following: unacceptable filter tilt.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.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.Unknown if the reported limited mobility and worry are directly related to the filter and unable to identify a corresponding failure mode at this point in time.A total of 20 devices were manufactured in the reported lot.To date, no other complaints have been reported against the lot.The associated work order was reviewed.No related/relevant notes were documented.The device is manufactured and inspected according to current controls.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 report will be submitted should additional information become available.
|
Patient alleges an unsuccessful filter retrieval attempt on (b)(6) 2013 because the filter was not longer needed.Patient further notes and alleges experiencing "worry" and limited mobility due to "damage to my leg".Patient allegedly received an implant on (b)(6) 2012 via the left femoral vein due to blood clot in right leg.Patient is alleging the filter is unable to be retrieved.Per the (b)(6) 2012 description of procedure: "completion venacavography revealed excellent position of the filter with about a 20-degree tilt.There was no evidence of device migration".Per implant report, (b)(6) 2013: unable to retrieve filter, most probably secondary to filter being embedded in the right inferior vena caval wall".
|