Skip to content

proGAV® FV449TRecalls & reported problems

Christoph Miethke GmbH & Co. KG · PROGAV SYS PED.W/SA 25 A.BURRH.RES. · Class 2 · Implant

All models of proGAV (28)

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

Adverse event reports
2
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
2
Recalls naming it
0

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 2 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 04041906132699), received between Sep 14, 2021 and Jul 20, 2022 — classified as 2 injuries.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Infusion or Flow Problem” (2 reports).

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.

Most reported problems

Device problems

  • Infusion or Flow Problem2
  • Mechanical Problem1

Patient problems

  • Hydrocephalus2

Recent adverse event reports

The 2 most recent of 2 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • InjuryJul 20, 2022Mechanical Problem; Infusion or Flow Problem; Mechanical Problem; Infusion or Flow Problem

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT A PROGAV SHUNTSYSTEM (PART # FV449T) WAS IMPLANTED DURING A PROCEDURE PERFORMED ON AN UNKNOWN DATE. ACCORDING TO THE COMPLAINANT, THE SHUNT SYSTEM WAS BELIEVED TO BE OPERATED IN OVERDRAINAGE AND DIFFICULT TO ADJUST. THE PATIENT UNDERWENT A REVISION PROCEDURE. THE COMPLAINT DEVICE WAS RETURNED TO THE MANUFACTURER FOR EVALUATION. NO PATIENT COMPLICATIONS WERE REPORTED AS A RESULT OF THE REVISION PROCEDURE. AGE: 13 YEARS. HEIGHT: 160 CENTIMETERS (CM). WEIGHT: 46 KILOGRAMS (KG). GENDER: FEMALE

    Patient problems: Hydrocephalus

    MAUDE report 15065567 ↗
  • InjurySep 14, 2021Infusion or Flow Problem; Infusion or Flow Problem

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT A PROGAV SYS PED.W/SA 25 A.BURRH.RES. (#FV449T) WAS IMPLANTED DURING A PROCEDURE PERFORMED ON (B)(6) 2014. ACCORDING TO THE COMPLAINANT, THE VALVE WAS BELIEVED TO BE NOT ADJUSTABLE AND BLOCKED. THE PATIENT UNDERWENT A REVISION PROCEDURE ON (B)(6) 2016. THE COMPLAINANT DEVICE WAS RETURNED TO THE MANUFACTURER FOR EVALUATION. NO PATIENT COMPLICATIONS WERE REPORTED AS A RESULT OF THE REVISION PROCEDURE. (B)(6).

    Patient problems: Hydrocephalus

    MAUDE report 12466782 ↗

Other Shunt, central nervous system and components devices

All Shunt, central nervous system and components devices →

Sources and updates

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