PFD report

Norman Joseph Pirie · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 18 Jan 2019•Inner North London

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
4

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised1

  1. Use of cuff devices in non-emergency procedures contrary to manufacturer IFU limits
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. Action

    Establish separate joint IR and vascular surgery planning meetings outside the MDT to assess device suitability, IFU compliance and durability, then feed results into the MDT.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 May 2019.
  2. Action

    Discuss MDT outcomes with patients, explain treatment options and risks, disclose proposed out-of-IFU endovascular treatment, and record that discussion.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 May 2019.
  3. Action

    Re-discuss cases in the MDT when no IFU-compliant option exists, considering no intervention or open surgery.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 May 2019.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Use of cuff devices in non-emergency procedures contrary to manufacturer IFU limits

Wider context from the report

“I am concerned that: (a) Cuff devices are being used in non-emergency procedures in a way that is contrary to the IFU limits set down by the manufacturers of those devices; and (b) In such circumstances, this increases the risk that the devices do not deploy as expected, as a result of which remedial open surgery has to be urgently performed which carries with it a high risk of death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Establish separate joint IR and vascular surgery planning meetings outside the MDT to assess device suitability, IFU compliance and durability, then feed results into the MDT.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• We will institute a separate planning meeting outside of the MDT. Here the nuanced technical discussions on the type of stent and manufacturer can be expanded.”

Source location

2019-0030-Response-by-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 23 May 2019

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Discuss MDT outcomes with patients, explain treatment options and risks, disclose proposed out-of-IFU endovascular treatment, and record that discussion.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Discussion around this MDT outcome will be undertaken with the patient in the outpatients setting. The patient will receive an explanation regarding the available treatment options and the risks and benefits of each. If an endovascular solution outside of IFU is proposed, this will be made clear to the patient and the discussion recorded.”

Source location

2019-0030-Response-by-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust
Page 4 · response
Published 23 May 2019

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Re-discuss cases in the MDT when no IFU-compliant option exists, considering no intervention or open surgery.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Where no IFU compliant option is available, we will re-discuss in the MDT to consider other options, i.e. no intervention or open surgery. However, non IFU treatment remains a possible solution in certain scenarios particularly urgent and emergency cases. While it is natural for the manufacturers to point out any deviance from Instructions For Use in the event of device failure, it is our opinion, based on our clinical experience of the peer-reviewed published body of evidence, that increased angulation of the aorta is unlikely to have been a factor in the failure of the device to deploy in this case”

Source location

2019-0030-Response-by-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 23 May 2019

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. 1

    Record treatment decisions in the clinical record and notify the patient and GP of the MDT outcome.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 May 2019.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.3

  1. 1

    There was no undue concern that the device would fail to deploy because of the aortic angulation.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. 2

    Fenestrated endovascular repair and open surgery were considered too high risk given the patient's condition and procedural complexity.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  3. 3

    Use of endovascular devices outside their instructions for use is accepted practice supported by the available literature.

    Stated by Barts Health NHS TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Record treatment decisions in the clinical record and notify the patient and GP of the MDT outcome.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The decision will be recorded in the patient’s Clinical Record. The patient and GP will be notified with an output from the MDT.”

Source location

2019-0030-Response-by-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 23 May 2019

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

There was no undue concern that the device would fail to deploy because of the aortic angulation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• In Mr Pirie’s case, given the above, the options were only those that were undertaken or no intervention at all. Given the institutional and world experience, there was no undue concern that the device would not deploy because of the given angulation.”

Source location

2019-0030-Response-by-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 23 May 2019

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Fenestrated endovascular repair and open surgery were considered too high risk given the patient's condition and procedural complexity.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Given Mr Pirie’s anaesthetic assessment, the alternative possible repair options - Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Repair (FEVAR) and open surgery – were known to be too high risk given the complexity of both.”

Source location

2019-0030-Response-by-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 23 May 2019

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Use of endovascular devices outside their instructions for use is accepted practice supported by the available literature.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The use of EVAR devices outside of the IFU is an accepted practice. The literature presented at the inquest was submitted to support this (attached). Extensive literature can be found on this.”

Source location

2019-0030-Response-by-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 23 May 2019

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026