(b)(4): during processing of this complaint, attempts were made to obtain complete event, patient and device information.Implant date has been estimated.The device was not returned for evaluation.A review of the lot history record and complaint history could not be conducted because the lot number was not provided.The investigation was unable to determine a conclusive cause for the reported scaffold under-expansion/possible malapposition.Based on the information reviewed, there is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling.
|
It was reported that the index procedure in (b)(6) 2016 at (b)(6) was to treat a lesion located in the left anterior descending (lad) artery.A 2.5 x 28 mm absorb was implanted.On (b)(6) 2016, the patient entered the hospital in (b)(6) due to several other diseases.During the investigation to treat the other diseases, 50 percent restenosis was observed in the absorb scaffold.The physician supposed the scaffold was under-expanded after implantation.The physician is not sure if he will treat the restenosis; however, if he does treat it, treatment options include balloon angioplasty only, or implantation of another drug eluting stent or implantation of another scaffold.No additional information was provided.
|