(b)(4).During processing of this complaint, attempts were made to obtain complete event, patient and device information.Concomitant products: dilation catheter: canpass 1.5 x 15 mm.Guide wire: sion.Guide catheter: 7f launcher.The device was received.Investigation is not yet complete.A follow up report will be submitted with all relevant information.
|
It was reported the procedure to treat a lesion in the proximal circumflex (cx) coronary artery.The 2.25 x 8 mm xience alpine stent was advanced and deployed at 10 atmospheres (atm) and then at 18 atm.Then, to perform post-dilatation, a 2.5 x 8 mm non-abbott balloon catheter was advanced, but the balloon catheter got caught with the edge of the deployed alpine stent and at this time the guide wire also came out of the lesion.Thus, the guide wire was re-advanced but it got caught with the edge of the deployed stent as well.The guide wire was replaced with a new guide wire and advanced, but also got caught with the edge of the alpine stent implant.Then, with the support of the micro-catheter, the guide wire was advanced again, but did not cross.Therefore, the guide wire tip was re-shaped like a knuckle.However, as the guide wire was being advanced, the tip happened to go between the vessel wall and the stent struts, as if the guide wire was woven between the vessel and the stent struts, causing the guide wire sticking with the stent.The tip of the guide wire was shaped like a ball as a result.Thus, in an attempt to detangle the ball-shaped tip, torque was applied, but the guide wire remained stuck with the stent implant.A micro-catheter was advanced close to the entangled guide wire tip and pulled with slight resistance and removed.Then, once the guide wire was outside the patient anatomy, it was observed the stent implant had been removed with the guide wire.The patient condition remained stable, thus, the procedure was continued and a 2.5 x 8 mm xience alpine stent was deployed.There was no adverse patient effect reported.No additional information was provided.
|
(b)(4).Evaluation summary: the device was returned for analysis.Visual inspections were performed on the returned device.The device damaged by another device was able to be confirmed.The difficult to position could not be replicated in a testing environment as it was based on operational circumstances.A review of the lot history record identified no manufacturing nonconformities issued to the reported lot that would have contributed to this event.Additionally, a review of the complaint history identified no other similar incidents from this lot.Based on the information reviewed, there is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.The investigation determined the difficulties appear to be related to circumstances of the procedure.
|