It was reported that using a radial access site, pre-dilatation was performed; however, the 3.5x18 mm device did not cross.There was a little bit of resistance upon removal as the struts were a bit flared.Three additional devices (3.0x18 mm, 3.0x28 mm and 3.0x18 mm) crossed the lesion without any additional pre-dilatation or other procedural changes.There was no clinically significant delay in the procedure and no adverse patient effects.Return device analysis revealed balloon material peeling.
|
(b)(4).Evaluation summary: the device was returned for evaluation.The reported flared struts were not confirmed.However, balloon peeling was observed.The failure to advance and difficulty to remove/vessel resistance could not be replicated in a testing environment as it was based on operational circumstances.Based on visual and dimensional analysis of the returned device, there is no indication of a product deficiency.A review of the lot history record revealed no non-conformances that would have contributed to this complaint.A query of the electronic complaint handling database revealed no other incidents for failure to advance, difficult to remove or damage reported from this lot.Based on the information reviewed, there is no indication of a product deficiency.Though the device is not approved for sale in the u.S., it uses a delivery system which is similar to a device sold in the u.S.
|