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
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 · TerminatedMosaic 310 Bioprosthesis, Mitral, REF 310C29 - Product Usage: Replacement of malfunctioning native or prosthetic aortic and/or mitral valves.
- Z-1881-2019 · May 21, 2019 · TerminatedMosaic 310 Bioprosthesis, Mitral, REF 310C31 - Product Usage: Replacement of malfunctioning native or prosthetic aortic and/or mitral valves.
- Z-1225-2009 · Jan 26, 2009 · TerminatedMedtronic 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
- INSPIRIS RESILIA AORTIC VALVE 11500AEdwards Lifesciences LLC · Heart-Valve, Non-Allograft Tissue2 deaths404 reports
- INSPIRIS RESILIA AORTIC VALVE 11500AEdwards Lifesciences LLC · Heart-Valve, Non-Allograft Tissue385 reports
- PERCEVAL PVS23Corcym Canada Corp · heart-valve, non-allograft tissue26 deaths337 reports
- MOSAIC® 305C23Medtronic, Inc. · heart-valve, non-allograft tissue327 reports
- MOSAIC® 305C25Medtronic, Inc. · heart-valve, non-allograft tissue2 deaths324 reports
- FREESTYLE® FR995-27Medtronic, Inc. · heart-valve, non-allograft tissue2 deaths318 reports
- FREESTYLE® FR995-29Medtronic, Inc. · heart-valve, non-allograft tissue288 reports
- FREESTYLE® FR99525Medtronic, Inc. · heart-valve, non-allograft tissue2 deaths280 reports
Sources and updates
- Device record: FDA GUDID, file dated Oct 13, 2026 · View this device in AccessGUDID ↗
- Adverse event reports: FDA MAUDE, file dated Oct 14, 2026 · each report above links to its original FDA record
- Recalls: FDA Medical Device Recalls, file dated Oct 16, 2026
- Page last rebuilt: Oct 18, 2026. Data downloaded through openFDA, which notes it is not validated for clinical or regulatory use.
How reports and recalls are matched · Editorial policy · Report an error on this page