PERCLOSE PROGLIDE 6F SUTURE MEDIATED CLOSURE (SMC) SYSTEM
Report
- Report Number
- 2024168-2012-06707
- Event Type
- Injury
- Date Received
- October 23, 2012
- Date of Event
- October 8, 2012
- Report Date
- October 10, 2012
- Manufacturer
- AV-TEMECULA-CT
- Product Code
- MGB
- PMA / PMN Number
- P960043
- Adverse Event
- Yes
- Product Problem
- Yes
- Report Source
- Manufacturer report
- Reporter Location
- OK, US
- Reporter Occupation
- HEALTH PROFESSIONAL
Narratives
(B)(4):DURING PROCESSING OF THIS COMPLAINT, ATTEMPTS WERE MADE TO OBTAIN COMPLETE EVENT, PATIENT AND DEVICE INFORMATION.THE SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PERCLOSE PROGLIDE DEVICE HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED IN PATIENTS WITH FEMORAL ARTERY CALCIUM WHICH IS FLUOROSCOPICALLY VISIBLE AT ACCESS SITE.THE DEVICE WAS RECEIVED. INVESTIGATION IS NOT YET COMPLETE. A FOLLOW-UP REPORT WILL BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL ADDITIONAL RELEVANT INFORMATION.
(B)(4). LOT NUMBER CORRECTED FROM 20712J1 TO 20721J1. FORCEFUL DEVICE REMOVAL. THE PROGLIDE INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE INDICATE: DO NOT ADVANCE OR WITHDRAW THE DEVICE AGAINST RESISTANCE UNTIL THE CAUSE OF THAT RESISTANCE HAS BEEN DETERMINED. EXCESSIVE FORCE USED TO ADVANCE OR TORQUE THE DEVICE SHOULD BE AVOIDED, AS THIS MAY LEAD TO SIGNIFICANT VESSEL DAMAGE AND/OR BREAKAGE OF THE DEVICE, WHICH MAY NECESSITATE INTERVENTION AND/OR SURGICAL REMOVAL OF THE DEVICE AND VESSEL REPAIR. EVALUATION SUMMARY: THE DEVICE WAS RETURNED FOR EVALUATION. THE REPORTED EVENT OF FOOT WOULD NOT RETRACT WAS NOT CONFIRMED. THE DEVICE WAS RECEIVED WITH THE FOOT DETACHED AND DAMAGE AT THE AREA WHERE THE FOOT IS POSITIONED AND COMPONENTS THAT INTERACT WITH THE FOOT WERE SEVERED. FUNCTIONAL TESTING CONFIRMED THE MECHANISM TO RETRACT THE FOOT INSIDE THE SHEATH ACTUATED ACCORDINGLY. REPORTEDLY, THE VESSEL WAS MILDLY CALCIFIED AND CALCIUM HAS THE POTENTIAL TO INTERFERE WITH FOOT PARKING AND RESULT IN THE REPORTED USE OF FORCE. BASED ON THE REPORTED INFORMATION AND THE INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, THE MOST LIKELY CAUSE FOR THE REPORTED EVENT WAS DETERMINED TO BE RELATED TO THE OPERATIONAL CONTEXT IN WHICH THE DEVICE WAS USED. A REVIEW OF THE LOT HISTORY RECORD REVEALED NO NON-CONFORMANCES THAT WOULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE REPORTED EVENT. RESULTS OF THE QUERY OF SIMILAR INCIDENTS IN THE COMPLAINT HANDLING DATABASE FROM THIS LOT DID NOT INDICATE A MANUFACTURING ISSUE. BASED ON THE INFORMATION REVIEWED, THERE IS NO INDICATION OF A PRODUCT DEFICIENCY.
SUBSEQUENT TO THE INITIAL MEDWATCH REPORT, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED INDICATES: THE FOOT WOULD NOT RETRACT AND THE DEVICE WAS PULLED OUT FORCEFULLY AND TORE THE ARTERY. THE PHYSICIAN WAS NOT SURE AS TO WHY THE FOOT WOULD NOT RETRACT; HOWEVER, THERE WAS A SURGEON ON THE CASE AND THEY CONVERTED TO A CUT DOWN. A PATCH WAS USED TO REPAIR THE TEAR IN THE ARTERY AND EVERYTHING WAS FINE FROM THAT POINT. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.
IT WAS REPORTED THAT SUTURE PLACEMENT OF THE PROGLIDE DEVICE WAS ATTEMPTED IN THE RIGHT COMMON FEMORAL ARTERY USING THE PRECLOSE TECHNIQUE PRIOR TO A TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE IMPLANTATION PROCEDURE. THE ARTERIOTOMY WAS 6 FR AND THE VESSEL WAS MILDLY CALCIFIED. REPORTEDLY, A CUFF MISS OCCURRED. IT WAS INDICATED THAT THE CUFF MISS WAS PROBABLY CAUSED BY CALCIUM. A DECISION WAS MADE TO SURGICALLY CLOSE THE VESSEL AT THE END OF THE INDEX PROCEDURE VIA CUT DOWN. THERE WAS NO ADVERSE PATIENT SEQUELA. THE PHYSICIAN IS REPORTED TO BE TRAINED IN THE USE OF THE PROGLIDE DEVICE. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED.
Devices
| Seq | Brand | Generic | Product Code | Manufacturer | Model | Lot | UDI-DI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | PERCLOSE PROGLIDE 6F SUTURE MEDIATED CLOSURE (SMC) SYSTEM | SUTURE MEDIATED CLOSURE | MGB | AV-TEMECULA-CT | 20721J1 |
Patients
| Seq | Age | Sex | Outcome | Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 80 YR | Required Intervention | SHEATH: 6 FR. |