Advertisement

A Comparison of Patient and Device Issues Reported for Recalled Venous Stent Systems

  • Yuchi Ma
    Affiliations
    Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, 1201 E Marshall St, Richmond, VA 23298, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • James M. Dittman
    Affiliations
    Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, 1201 E Marshall St, Richmond, VA 23298, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Kedar S. Lavingia
    Correspondence
    Corresponding Author: Kedar S. Lavingia, Central Virginia VA Health System, Surgical Services (112), 1201 Broad Rock Boulevard, Richmond VA 23249Direct: 804-675-5112, Business: 804-675-5000, Fax: 804-675-5581
    Affiliations
    Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, 1201 E Marshall St, Richmond, VA 23298, USA

    Central Virginia VA Health Care System, 1201 Broad Rock Blvd, Richmond, VA 23249, USA

    Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, 1250 E. Marshall Street. Richmond, VA 23219, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Michael F. Amendola
    Affiliations
    Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, 1201 E Marshall St, Richmond, VA 23298, USA

    Central Virginia VA Health Care System, 1201 Broad Rock Blvd, Richmond, VA 23249, USA

    Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, 1250 E. Marshall Street. Richmond, VA 23219, USA
    Search for articles by this author
Published:August 30, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2022.08.002

      Abstract

      Introduction

      The first two FDA approved stents for treatment of iliofemoral vein obstruction, Boston Scientific’s Vici and BD’s Venovo Venous Stent Systems, were both recalled in early 2021 within years of entering the market. Given the recent addition of patient issues as a publicly reported variable by the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, we set forth to analyze adverse event reports in MAUDE to better characterize issues reported for each system.

      Methods

      MAUDE was queried for all adverse event reports for brands “Vici” and “Venovo” from their respective US FDA market approval dates to August 19, 2021. Reported device issues, patient issues, and intervention performed for each adverse event were compiled and compared utilizing Fisher’s exact test.

      Results

      A total of 50 unique adverse event reports were compiled for the Vici system and 341 for the Venovo system. The most common device issue reported for the Vici system was migration (48% vs 0%; p=0.0001) versus activation failure in Venovo (85% vs 4%; p=0.0001). A significantly higher proportion of Venovo reports specified no patient complications or symptoms (90% vs 26%; p=0.0001), with no intervention performed (89% vs 32%; p=0.001). A significantly higher proportion of Vici devices were extracted (8% vs 2%; p=0.01), required use of a new device (26% vs 5%; p=0.0001), and required application of a second stent within the venous stent initially placed (28% vs 2%; p=0.0001). The rate of intervention with balloon expansion was not significantly different between the Vici and Venovo systems (6% vs 2%; p=0.08).

      Conclusion

      While two venous stent systems were recalled simultaneously, significant differences exist between reported device issues in MAUDE and whether patient injury was involved and well-described. Our data suggests that despite recent improvements to MAUDE reporting, additional standardization with specificity regarding patient issues and interventions is needed to assist vascular surgeons monitoring real-time adverse event trends for vascular devices.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Annals of Vascular Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. US Food & Drug Administration. Boston Scientific Corporation Recalls VICI VENOUS STENT System and VICI RDS VENOUS STENT System for Potential of Stent Migration, https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/medical-device-recalls/boston-scientific-corporation-recalls-vici-venous-stent-system-and-vici-rds-venous-stent-system [accessed 5 February 2022].

      2. US Food & Drug Administration. Class 2 Device Recall VENOVO Venous Stent System, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRes/res.cfm?ID=187686 [accessed 5 February 2022].

        • Bundy J.J.
        • Shin D.S.
        • Meissner M.H.
        • et al.
        Maldeployment of the Venovo Stent: A Series of 2 Documented Instances.
        J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2021 May; 32: 781-783https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2021.02.003
        • Razavi M.K.
        • Black S.
        • Gagne P.
        • et al.
        Pivotal Study of Endovenous Stent Placement for Symptomatic Iliofemoral Venous Obstruction.
        Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Dec; 12e008268https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008268
      3. US Food & Drug Administration. MAUDE - Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/search.cfm [accessed 19 August 2021].

      4. US Food & Drug Administration. Medical Device Reporting (MDR): How to Report Medical Device Problems, https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/medical-device-safety/medical-device-reporting-mdr-how-report-medical-device-problems#requirements [accessed 5 February 2022].

      5. US Food & Drug Administration. Statement on agency’s efforts to increase transparency in medical device reporting. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-agencys-efforts-increase-transparency-medical-device-reporting [5 February 2022].

        • Shamimi-Noori S.M.
        • Clark T.W.I.
        Venous Stents: Current Status and Future Directions.
        Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018 Jun; 21: 113-116https://doi.org/10.1053/j.tvir.2018.03.007
        • Dabir D.
        • Feisst A.
        • Thomas D.
        • et al.
        Physical Properties of Venous Stents: An Experimental Comparison.
        Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2018 Jun; 41: 942-950https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-018-1916-1
        • Ensign L.G.
        • Cohen K.B.
        A Primer to the Structure, Content and Linkage of the FDA's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) Files.
        EGEMS (Wash DC). 2017 Jun 14; 5: 12https://doi.org/10.5334/egems.221
        • Sawaya J.
        • Champlain A.
        • Cohen J.
        • Avram M.
        Barriers to Reporting: Limitations of the Maude Database.
        Dermatol Surg. 2021; 47: 424-425https://doi.org/10.1097/DSS.0000000000002832
        • Mukherjee U.K.
        • Sinha K.K.
        Product Recall Decisions in Medical Device Supply Chains: A Big Data Analytic Approach to Evaluating Judgment Bias.
        Prod Oper Manag. 2017; 27: 1670-1684https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12696
        • Ziapour B.
        • Zaepfel C.
        • Iafrati M.D.
        • et al.
        A systematic review of the quality of cardiovascular surgery studies that extracted data from the MAUDE database.
        J Vasc Surg. 2021 Nov; 74: 1708-1720.e5https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2021.01.050
      6. Government Accountability Office. GAO-12-816 Information Security of Active Medical Devices, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-12-816.pdf [accessed 5 February 2022].

      7. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) Public Dashboard, https://www.fda.gov/drugs/questions-and-answers-fdas-adverse-event-reporting-system-faers/fda-adverse-event-reporting-system-faers-public-dashboard [accessed 5 February 2022].