Same case as mdr id: 2134265-2014-01538.(b)(4).It was reported that stent thrombosis, substernal chest pain associated with diaphoresis and nausea occurred.On (b)(6) 2010, the patient presented with 4 months history of mild chest pain associated with left sided jaw pain and was diagnosed with stable angina.Cardiac catheterization was recommended.Subsequently, coronary angiography and index procedure was performed.Target lesion #1 was a denovo lesion located in the mid left anterior descending (lad) with 99% stenosis and was 8 mm long with a reference vessel diameter of 3.0 mm.Target lesion #1 was treated with direct stent placement using a 3.50 x 12 mm taxus liberté stent.Following post dilatation residual stenosis was 0%.Target lesion #2 was a denovo lesion located in the proximal lad with 75-80% stenosis and was 8 mm long with a reference vessel diameter of 3.5 mm.Target lesion#2 was treated with direct stent placement using a 3.50 x 12 mm taxus liberté stent.Following post dilatation, residual stenosis was 0%.One day post procedure, the patient was discharged on aspirin and prasugrel.On (b)(6) 2014, the patient presented with episodes of sudden substernal crushing chest pain associated with diaphoresis and nausea and patient was hospitalized immediately.Electrocardiogram (ecg) changes were indicative of ischemia.Troponin was drawn however value is unknown.At the time of the event, the subject was on aspirin only.The study drug per protocol was never taken during the study and other anti-platelet medication was last taken on (b)(6) 2014.The patient was diagnosed with non-st elevation myocardial infarction on the following day and cardiac catheterization was recommended.Then two days from admission, coronary angiography revealed stent thrombosis in proximal lad and filling defect associated with proximal lad.The patient was treated medically.Two days from admission, the event was considered to be resolved without residual effects and the patient was discharged on aspirin and clopidogrel.
|
Device is a combination product.Device evaluated by mfr: it is indicated that the device will not be returned for evaluation; therefore, a failure analysis of the complaint device could not be completed.A review of the batch history, historical trending, and similar complaint trending review for the product family will be conducted.If there is any further relevant information from that review, a supplemental medwatch will be filed.(b)(4).
|