Skip to content

MOSAIC ULTRA® 305U225 (UDI 00613994760616)Recalls & reported problems

Medtronic, Inc. · VALVE 305U225 MOS AOR ULT CNCHII NNA US · Class 3 · Implant

All models of MOSAIC ULTRA (40)

Data updated Oct 18, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy

Adverse event reports
9
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
9
Recalls naming it
0

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 9 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 00613994760616), received between May 22, 2018 and May 29, 2025 — classified as 9 injuries.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Insufficient Device Problem Information” (7 reports).

3 other recalls cover devices cleared under the same FDA submission (P990064); they may or may not involve this specific model.

Reports come from manufacturers, hospitals and patients and are not verified by the FDA. A report does not prove the device caused the event, and counts can't be used to compare devices or estimate failure rates. What reports can and can't tell you · How this data works · Data updated Oct 18, 2026.

Reports received per month

Nov 2023: 0 reportsDec 2023: 1 reportsJan 2024: 0 reportsFeb 2024: 0 reportsMar 2024: 0 reportsApr 2024: 0 reportsMay 2024: 0 reportsJun 2024: 0 reportsJul 2024: 0 reportsAug 2024: 0 reportsSep 2024: 0 reportsOct 2024: 0 reportsNov 2024: 0 reportsDec 2024: 1 reportsJan 2025: 1 reportsFeb 2025: 0 reportsMar 2025: 0 reportsApr 2025: 0 reportsMay 2025: 1 reportsJun 2025: 0 reportsJul 2025: 0 reportsAug 2025: 0 reportsSep 2025: 0 reportsOct 2025: 0 reportsNov 2025: 0 reportsDec 2025: 0 reportsJan 2026: 0 reportsFeb 2026: 0 reportsMar 2026: 0 reportsApr 2026: 0 reportsMay 2026: 0 reportsJun 2026: 0 reportsJul 2026: 0 reportsAug 2026: 0 reportsSep 2026: 0 reportsOct 2026: 0 reports2024202520261
Last 36 months. The most recent month may be incomplete.

Most reported problems

Device problems

  • Insufficient Device Problem Information7
  • Device Stenosis2
  • Gradient Increase2
  • Intravalvular regurgitation1

Patient problems

  • Aortic Valve Stenosis6
  • Insufficient Information3
  • Aortic Valve Insufficiency/ Regurgitation2
  • Calcium Deposits/Calcification1
  • No Information1

Recent adverse event reports

The 9 most recent of 9 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • InjuryMay 29, 2025Device Stenosis; Device Stenosis

    MEDTRONIC RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT 14 YEARS AND 3 MONTHS POST IMPLANT OF THIS AORTIC BIOPROSTHETIC VALVE, THE PATIENT IS BEING EVALUATED FOR A TRANSCATHETER VALVE-IN-VALVE REPLACEMENT. THE REASON FOR EVALUATION WAS REPORTED AS AORTIC STENOSIS. NO INTERVENTION OR ADVERSE PATIENT EFFECTS WERE REPORTED. SUBSEQUENTLY, 2 WEEKS LATER, A TRANSCATHETER VALVE WAS IMPLANTED VALVE-IN-VALVE. NO ADDITIONAL ADVERSE PATIENT EFFECTS WERE REPORTED.

    Patient problems: Aortic Valve Stenosis

    MAUDE report 22108026 ↗
  • InjuryJan 10, 2025Insufficient Device Problem Information; Insufficient Device Problem Information

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT A PATIENT UNDERWENT AN AORTIC TISSUE VALVE IMPLANTATION ON (B)(6) 2010, FOLLOWED BY A TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT ON (B)(6) 2022. NO ADVERSE PATIENT EFFECTS WERE REPORTED.

    Patient problems: Insufficient Information

    MAUDE report 21123946 ↗
  • InjuryDec 6, 2024Insufficient Device Problem Information; Intravalvular regurgitation; Insufficient Device Problem Information; Intravalvular regurgitation

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE PATIENT IS BEING EVALUATED FOR A TRANSCATHETER VALVE-IN-VALVE REPLACEMENT DUE TO AN UNKNOWN MODE OF FAILURE IN A MOSAIC SURGICAL VALVE. SUBSEQUENTLY, 4 DAYS LATER, A 26MM EVOLUT FX+ WAS IMPLANTED IN THE FAILED MOSAIC SURGICAL VALVE. NO ADDITIONAL ADVERSE PATIENT EFFECTS WERE REPORTED.

    Patient problems: Aortic Valve Insufficiency/ Regurgitation; Insufficient Information

    MAUDE report 20863231 ↗
  • InjuryDec 5, 2023Gradient Increase; Device Stenosis; Gradient Increase; Device Stenosis

    MEDTRONIC RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT 12 YEARS AND 10 MONTHS POST IMPLANT OF THIS AORTIC BIOPROSTHETIC VALVE, A TRANSCATHETER VALVE WAS IMPLANTED VALVE-IN-VALVE. THE REASON FOR INTERVENTION WAS REPORTED AS AORTIC STENOSIS (AS) WITH A MEAN GRADIENT OF 45MMHG. NO ADDITIONAL ADVERSE PATIENT EFFECTS WERE REPORTED.

    Patient problems: Aortic Valve Stenosis

    MAUDE report 18264860 ↗
  • InjuryFeb 14, 2022Insufficient Device Problem Information; Insufficient Device Problem Information

    MEDTRONIC RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT 11 YEARS AND 5 MONTHS POST IMPLANT OF THIS AORTIC BIOPROSTHETIC VALVE, THE PATIENT IS BEING EVALUATED FOR A TRANSCATHETER VALVE-IN-VALVE REPLACEMENT. SUBSEQUENTLY 5 DAYS LATER, A TRANSCATHETER VALVE WAS IMPLANTED VALVE-IN-VALVE DUE TO AORTIC STENOSIS. NO ADDITIONAL ADVERSE PATIENT EFFECTS WERE REPORTED.

    Patient problems: Aortic Valve Stenosis

    MAUDE report 13525234 ↗
  • InjuryFeb 3, 2022Gradient Increase; Insufficient Device Problem Information; Gradient Increase; Insufficient Device Problem Information

    MEDTRONIC RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT 10 YEARS AND 8 MONTHS POST IMPLANT OF THIS AORTIC BIOPROSTHETIC VALVE, A TRANSCATHETER VALVE WAS IMPLANTED VALVE-IN-VALVE. THE REASON FOR INTERVENTION WAS NOT REPORTED. NO ADDITIONAL ADVERSE PATIENT EFFECTS WERE REPORTED.

    Patient problems: Aortic Valve Insufficiency/ Regurgitation; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Insufficient Information

    MAUDE report 13447103 ↗
  • InjuryDec 2, 2021Insufficient Device Problem Information; Insufficient Device Problem Information

    MEDTRONIC RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT 9 YEARS AND 7 MONTHS POST IMPLANT OF THIS AORTIC BIOPROSTHETIC VALVE, THE PATIENT IS BEING EVALUATED FOR A TRANSCATHETER VALVE-IN-VALVE REPLACEMENT. NO INTERVENTION OR ADVERSE PATIENT EFFECTS WERE REPORTED. SUBSEQUENTLY, 6 DAYS LATER, A TRANSCATHETER VALVE WAS IMPLANTED VALVE-IN-VALVE. THE REASON FOR INTERVENTION WAS AORTIC STENOSIS. NO ADDITIONAL ADVERSE PATIENT EFFECTS WERE REPORTED.

    Patient problems: Aortic Valve Stenosis

    MAUDE report 12916890 ↗
  • InjuryNov 5, 2020Insufficient Device Problem Information; Insufficient Device Problem Information

    MEDTRONIC RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT APPROXIMATELY 10 YEARS POST IMPLANT OF THIS AORTIC BIOPROSTHETIC VALVE, A TRANSCATHETER VALVE WAS IMPLANTED VALVE-IN-VALVE. THE REASON FOR INTERVENTION WAS NOT REPORTED. NO ADDITIONAL ADVERSE PATIENT EFFECTS WERE REPORTED.

    Patient problems: No Information

    MAUDE report 10792836 ↗
  • InjuryMay 22, 2018Insufficient Device Problem Information; Insufficient Device Problem Information

    MEDTRONIC RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT 6 YEARS AND 7 MONTHS POST IMPLANT OF THIS AORTIC BIOPROSTHETIC VALVE, THE VALVE WAS EXPLANTED AND REPLACED WITH A MECHANICAL VALVE DUE TO CALCIFICATION AND STENOSIS. NO ADDITIONAL ADVERSE PATIENT EFFECTS WERE REPORTED.

    Patient problems: Aortic Valve Stenosis; Calcium Deposits/Calcification

    MAUDE report 7532285 ↗

Recalls under the same FDA submission

These recalls involve devices cleared under P990064. One submission often covers many models, so check the product and lot details in each record.

  • Z-1880-2019 · May 21, 2019 · Terminated
    Mosaic 310 Bioprosthesis, Mitral, REF 310C29 - Product Usage: Replacement of malfunctioning native or prosthetic aortic and/or mitral valves.
  • Z-1881-2019 · May 21, 2019 · Terminated
    Mosaic 310 Bioprosthesis, Mitral, REF 310C31 - Product Usage: Replacement of malfunctioning native or prosthetic aortic and/or mitral valves.
  • Z-1225-2009 · Jan 26, 2009 · Terminated
    Medtronic Mosaic Porcine Bioprostheses with Cinch, Heart Valve; Model 305; Catalog #s 305C21AA, 305C2701, 305C2301, 305C2501, and 305C2901; Sterile LC; Rx only; Medtronic Inc 710 M

Other heart-valve, non-allograft tissue devices

All heart-valve, non-allograft tissue devices →

Sources and updates

How reports and recalls are matched · Editorial policy · Report an error on this page