Same case as mdr id: 2134265-2015-05200.(b)(4).It was reported that myocardial infarction occurred and the patient died.In (b)(6) 2012, the patient presented due to unstable angina and was referred for cardiac catheterization.Subsequently index procedure was performed.Target lesion # 1 was a de novo lesion located in the proximal left anterior descending (lad) with 80% stenosis and was 30 mm long with a reference vessel diameter of 3.0 mm.Target lesion # 1 was treated with direct stent placement using a 2.50x24.00mm promus element⠐lus stent.Following post dilatation, residual stenosis was 0 %.Target lesion # 2 was a de novo lesion located in the mid lad with 80% stenosis and was 30 mm long with a reference vessel diameter of 3.0 mm.Target lesion # 2 was treated with direct stent placement using a 2.50x24.00mm promus element plus stent.Following post dilatation, residual stenosis was 0 %.Two days post-index procedure, the patient was discharged on aspirin and prasugrel.In (b)(6) 2015, the patient presented emergently with complaints of acute non-radiating chest pain associated with diaphoresis, dyspnea, nausea and vomiting.The patient was placed on intravenous(iv) volume, endotracheal intubation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation(cpr) was initiated.The patient was treated with cardiogenic shock and despite aggressive medical therapy and prolonged cpr with multiple drugs, there was no pulse restoration.The patient remained in junctional bradycardia and sinus rhythm throughout the hospitalization and owing to his deteriorating clinical condition, critical care measures were initiated.The patient expired on the same day and the cause of death was acute mi.Autopsy was not performed.
|
It was further reported that the patient was scheduled for a cardiac catheterization, but the procedure was not performed.Hence, owing to the absence of a cardiac catheterization report, the patency of study stents is unknown.The patient was also noted to be in pulseless electrical activity.It was initially incorrectly reported that the patient was treated with cardiogenic shock when it should have been reported that the patient was in cardiogenic shock.
|