This complaint is from a literature source.Radiofrequency versus cryoballoon ablation for atrialfibrillation in the setting of left common pulmonary veins.Pmid: 31579929 doi: 10.1111/pace.13810.No device was received for analysis at the time of submission of the initial 3500a.Since the product was not returned for analysis, no product failure analysis can be conducted, and no determination of possible contributing factors could be made.Device history record (dhr) review cannot be conducted because the lot number was provided by the customer.Manufacturer's reference number: (b)(4).
|
This complaint is from a literature source.Radiofrequency versus cryoballoon ablation for atrialfibrillation in the setting of left common pulmonary veins.Pmid: 31579929 doi: 10.1111/pace.13810.Objective/methods/study data: the aim of this study was to compare the performance of radiofrequency (rf) versus second-generation cryoballoon (cb-a) ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (af) and lcpvs.Methods: between january 2009 and november 2014, in a total cohort of 716 patients undergoing pv isolation with preprocedural ctscanning, lcpv+ patients were selected with measurement of pv ostial area and trunk distance.All lcpv+ patients were matched between rf (radiofrequency) and cryoballoon (cb-a) ablation group in a 1:1 ratio based on propensity scores, and compared for outcome.Lot, model and catalog number are not available, but the suspected biosense device possibly associated with reported adverse events: thermo- cool smarttouchcatheter, thermocool catheter other biosense webster devices that were also used in this study: lasso, carto; biosensewebster inc non-biosense webster devices that were also used in this study: adverse event(s) and provided interventions: one patient has experienced a femoral pseudo-aneurysm with requirement of intervention.One patient has experienced a transient ischemic attack that occurred postprocedure.
|