The reported oad was received at csi for analysis.Adhered biological material was observed on the driveshaft.No damage was observed that may have contributed to the accumulating material.The morphology and exact root cause of the accumulation is unknown.It was possible that the biological material may have contributed to the reported event, however, this was unable to be confirmed.A guide wire was passed through the oad with no resistance.The oad was tested, spun on all speeds, and functioned as intended.Device data logs revealed stall events.The stall events may have contributed to the event, however, this could not be confirmed.At the conclusion of the device analysis, the reported perforation was unable to be conclusively confirmed.The device history record for this oad lot number has been reviewed.No issues or discrepancies were noted during this review that would have contributed to the reported event.The device met material, assembly, and quality control requirements.(b)(4).
|
A peripheral orbital atherectomy device (oad) was selected for treatment of a 100% occluded lesion in the proximal posterior tibial artery.The lesion was predilated with balloon angioplasty and intravascular ultrasound was performed.Oad treatment was performed, and a pitch change was heard.The oad was shut off, and a perforation was observed on imaging.Balloon angioplasty was performed, and the extravasation was removed via aspiration.The patient was stable following the procedure.
|