|
Patient allegedly received an implant on (b)(6)2010 via the right internal jugular vein due to deep vein thrombosis.Patient is alleging migration, vena cava perforation, inability to retrieve, pulmonary embolism.Patient further alleging pain, swelling, embedment, physical limitations and anxiety.Patient notes that a another manufacture¿s ivc filter was placed approximately 3 weeks prior to the cook filter report from computerized tomography (ct): "a small pulmonary embolus is seen within the right lower lung on images 63 through 71." "two infrarenal ivc filters are seen in place.The prongs of the ivc filters extend beyond the walls of the inferior vena cava." "small right lower lung pulmonary embolus despite two inferior vena cava filters in place.".
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unavailable, or unchanged.Additional information: investigation investigation is reopened due to additional information provided.The reported allegations have been further investigated based on the information provided to date.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.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 pain, swelling, physical limitations, and anxiety are directly related to the filter and unable to identify a corresponding failure mode at this point in time.Rpn and lot# are unknown.The alleged tulip is manufactured and inspected according to current controls.The following allegations have been investigated: pulmonary embolism (pe),vena cava (vc) perforation, embedment, inability to retrieve, migration, pain, swelling, physical limitations, anxiety.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.The following fields were updated per additional information received: a2, a4, b1, b5, b6, b7, h6.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.
|
