|
Model Number 9004 |
Device Problem
Deflation Problem (1149)
|
Patient Problem
No Consequences Or Impact To Patient (2199)
|
Event Date 10/13/2015 |
Event Type
malfunction
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
The sample is being returned to the manufacturer at this time; therefore, evaluation is anticipated but has not yet begun.The product identifiers were obtained; therefore, a device history record (dhr) was reviewed for this device.A review of the manufacturing record show the lot was manufactured to specification.There was nothing found to indicate there was a manufacturing related cause for this event.Conclusion: the actual sample has not been received, but is anticipated to be returned for evaluation.Upon completion of the investigation, a supplement report will be submitted with all relevant information.The information provided by bard represents all of the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant / reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bard.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported a lutonix percutaneous transluminal drug coated balloon (dcb) dilatation catheter allegedly was unable to be deflated after successful treatment of the target lesion.The health care professional (hcp) used a contralateral approach with a 6 french introducer sheath and a 035 terumo guidewire.The hcp predilated the target lesion successfully.The lutonix dcb was prepared in the normal fashion and was flushed.The peel away balloon protector was removed.The lutonix dcb inflated without issues, but it was unable to be completely deflated.The hcp decided to remove the balloon slowly from the patient.After removal of the balloon, the hcp noted the balloon appeared twisted.No adverse patient effects were reported.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Analysis: microscopic visual inspection revealed focal necking of the inner lumen, which was evident at three separate locations.The first location was approximately 50 mm proximal from the proximal marker band and the second was next to the proximal balloon bond.The third was within the hub of the catheter.These areas may have been where the hcp held the shaft during insertion of the balloon into the introducer sheath.Focal necking was also present within the catheter hub.The outer and inner shafts were kinked at the strain relief.The balloon was bent and the proximal end of the balloon was accordioned.Conclusion: returned product analysis confirmed the deflation issue of the lutonix dcb.Focal necking was present in three separate locations along the length of the catheter.The balloon was able to fully inflate, but when negative pressure was applied, the rate of deflation was slow.The use environment and/or technique used to obtain the desired location within the target lesion may have caused or contributed to the slow deflation rate of the balloon after treatment.The information provided by bard represents all of the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant / reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bard.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|