|
COOK IRELAND LTD ZILVER PTX 35 DRUG-ELUTING STENT; NIU STENT, SUPERFICIAL FEMORAL ARTERY, DRUG-ELUTING
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Catalog Number ZIV6-35-125-6-100-PTX |
| Device Problem
Occlusion Within Device (1423)
|
| Patient Problem
Occlusion (1984)
|
| Event Date 03/17/2017 |
|
Event Type
Injury
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
(b)(4).Pma/510(k) #p100022/s001.The device was implanted in the patient and is therefore unavailable for evaluation.With the information provided a document based investigation was carried out.From the information provided, it is known the patient had the following pre-existing conditions: this (b)(6) female presented at the time of enrolment with a history of hypertension, an ischemic ulcer on the dorsum of right foot (5 cm x 4 cm), and smoking (past).The lesion morphology revealed a tasc i type c lesion and a tasc ii type b lesion with mild calcification and no thrombus.There was no previous intervention in the study lesion.There was no inflow tract stenosis greater than 50% and there were three patent runoff vessels.Baseline angiographic lesion measurements revealed a proximal reference vessel diameter (rvd) of 4.92 mm and distal rvd of 4.65 mm.There was 90% diameter stenosis.The lesion length was 120.0 mm.Imaging for this patient has been submitted to (b)(4), and is currently pending evaluation.The investigation will be updated following the receipt of the imaging review.There is no evidence to suggest that this event did not occur, therefore the complaint is confirmed based on customer testimony.Restenosis is a common adverse event of endovascular procedures and can be caused by injury to the vessel (e.G.During pta and/or stenting).Vessel injury provokes an inflammatory response that leads to (or amplifies) the restenosis process.It may be noted that surface of the zilver ptx stent is coated with the drug (paclitaxel) to help prevent subsequent restenosis of the artery.It can be therefore stated that it is very unlikely that the reported restenosis could have occurred due to zilver ptx malfunction; however as no imaging was available at the time of investigation, a definitive root cause of this event cannot be determined at this time.It may be noted that as per the instructions for use, ifu0093-5, restenosis of the stented artery is a known potential adverse event associated with the placement of this device.As the lot number of the complaint device is unknown, a review of relevant documentation could not be carried out.However, prior to distribution all zilver ptx devices are subject to visual inspection and functional checks to ensure device integrity.A secondary intervention of balloon angioplasty was performed.The patient remains in the study.Quality engineering will continue to monitor complaints of this nature for potential emerging trends.
|
| |
|
Event Description
|
|
(b)(6) ¿ occlusion/restenosis probably related to study product.At the index procedure on 03-sep-2015, the patient received one 6 mm x 40 mm and one 6 mm x 100 mm zilver ptx study stent in the right distal sfa and popliteal artery.On (b)(6) 2015, the patient underwent pre-dilatation of study lesion with one inflation of a 6.0 x 100 mm balloon at 16 atm for 30 seconds.One 6.0 mm x 40 mm (lot # c1134169) and one 6 mm x 100 mm zilver® ptx® v study stents were placed in the right distal sfa and popliteal artery via contralateral access.The implanting physician noted that ease of device deployment was easy.No non-study stents were used to treat the study lesion.Post-stent dilatation was performed with two inflations of a 6.0 mm x 100 mm dilatation balloon at 10 atm for 10 seconds.At the conclusion of the case, no thrombus or dissection was noted by the site, and the entire length of the study stent was apposed to the vessel wall.There was no residual stenosis remaining in the study lesion and the proximal and distal rvds were 5.0 mm.The post-procedural abi was not performed for the study leg.On (b)(6) 2015 (five days post-procedure), the patient was discharged from the hospital taking aspirin and plavix.On (b)(6) 2017 (561 days post-procedure), the patient experienced an occlusion/restenosis of the study lesion requiring intervention.The patient continued to take aspirin and plavix.The secondary intervention was performed and treatment included a balloon angioplasty.The physician determined that the occlusion/restenosis of the study lesion was probably related to the study product, possibly related to the study procedure, and the patient¿s pre-existing peripheral vascular disease caused or contributed to this event.((b)(4)).On the same day, the patient was diagnosed with an ischemic ulcer on the right forefoot (site has been queried to evaluate if this ulcer was pre-existing or new onset).Treatment included surgical debridement.The physician determined that the ischemic ulcer was probably related to the study product, probably related to the study procedure, and the patient¿s pre-existing peripheral vascular disease caused or contributed to this event.((b)(4)).Reference related reports # 3001845648-2017-00136, 3001845648-2017-00137 & 3001845648-2017-00139.
|
| |
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
(b)(4).Pma/510(k) #p100022/s001.The device was implanted in the patient and is therefore unavailable for evaluation.With the information provided a document based investigation was carried out.From the information provided, it is known the patient had the following pre-existing conditions: this (b)(6) female presented at the time of enrolment with a history of hypertension, an ischemic ulcer on the dorsum of right foot (5 cm x 4 cm), and smoking (past).The lesion morphology revealed a tasc i type c lesion and a tasc ii type b lesion with mild calcification and no thrombus.There was no previous intervention in the study lesion.There was no inflow tract stenosis greater than 50% and there were three patent runoff vessels.Baseline angiographic lesion measurements revealed a proximal reference vessel diameter (rvd) of 4.92 mm and distal rvd of 4.65 mm.There was 90% diameter stenosis.The lesion length was 120.0 mm.Images were provided to support the complaint investigation for (b)(4), which covers all 4 complaint files open for this patient.They were reviewed through (b)(4) and the following comments were provided by the independent reviewer: findings: implantation angiography is provided along with the complaint report.The lesion was a focal, 60% (2mm/6mm) above knee popliteal artery (pa) stenosis flanked by 70mm long 25% proximal and 17mm long distal stenoses.The stenoses were angioplastied and then stented with a 6x100mm stent, distally and a 6x40mm stent, proximally.No flow limiting, post angioplasty dissection was observed.The minimum lumen diameter post angioplasty was 3.Smm in the pa and 3mm in the distal most sfa.The 100mm stent was primarily located in the pa terminating 12mm above the knee joint.Inflow was normal and two-vessel runoff was present to the foot via the anterior and posterior tibial arteries.Varicose veins were imaged during the venous phase of the angiogram.Impression: no imaging of the complaint was provided; consequently the complaint cannot be confirmed.Given normal two vessel calf runoff, no history of diabetes, the dorsal foot location of the ulceration, and the calf varicose veins, the etiology of the patient's ulceration likely maybe, in large part, venous rather than arterial insufficiency.The dorsal foot is an unusual location for an arterial insufficiency, ischemic ulceration particularly in lieu of normal anterior tibial and dorsal pedis arteries and the absence of diabetes.Angiographically, the lesion would have been anticipated to cause claudication, not ischemic ulceration.Significant findings relative to the patient's anatomy were not observed.Significant findings relative to the disease state were observed.Varicose veins in the right calf indicated superficial venous insufficiency.Significant findings relative to the use of the device were not observed.Significant findings relative to the design or performance of the device were not observed.Cause of adverse events was not observed.As per the imaging review, no imaging of the complaint was provided therefore the complaint is confirmed based on customer testimony alone.Restenosis is a common adverse event of endovascular procedures and can be caused by injury to the vessel (e.G.During pta and/or stenting).Vessel injury provokes an inflammatory response that leads to (or amplifies) the restenosis process.It may be noted that surface of the zilver ptx stent is coated with the drug (paclitaxel) to help prevent subsequent restenosis of the artery.It can be therefore stated that it is very unlikely that the reported restenosis could have occurred due to zilver ptx malfunction; however as no imaging of the actual complaint was received, a definitive root cause of this event cannot be determined.It may be noted that as per the instructions for use, restenosis of the stented artery is a known potential adverse event associated with the placement of this device.As the lot number of the complaint device is unknown, a review of relevant documentation could not be carried out.However, prior to distribution all zilver ptx devices are subject to visual inspection and functional checks to ensure device integrity.A secondary intervention of balloon angioplasty was performed.The patient remains in the study.Quality engineering will continue to monitor complaints of this nature for potential emerging trends.
|
| |
|
Event Description
|
|
This follow up mdr is being submitted due to the receipt and review of images relating to this event.Initial report details: (b)(6) ¿ occlusion/restenosis probably related to study product.At the index procedure on (b)(6) 2015, the patient received one 6 mm x 40 mm and one 6 mm x 100 mm zilver ptx study stent in the right distal sfa and popliteal artery.On (b)(6) 2015, the patient underwent pre-dilatation of study lesion with one inflation of a 6.0 x 100 mm balloon at 16 atm for 30 seconds.One 6.0 mm x 40 mm (lot # c1134169) and one 6 mm x 100 mm zilver® ptx® v study stents were placed in the right distal sfa and popliteal artery via contralateral access.The implanting physician noted that ease of device deployment was easy.No non-study stents were used to treat the study lesion.Post-stent dilatation was performed with two inflations of a 6.0 mm x 100 mm dilatation balloon at 10 atm for 10 seconds.At the conclusion of the case, no thrombus or dissection was noted by the site, and the entire length of the study stent was apposed to the vessel wall.There was no residual stenosis remaining in the study lesion and the proximal and distal rvds were 5.0 mm.The post-procedural abi was not performed for the study leg.On (b)(6) 2015 (five days post-procedure), the patient was discharged from the hospital taking aspirin and plavix.On (b)(6) 2017 (561 days post-procedure), the patient experienced an occlusion/restenosis of the study lesion requiring intervention.The patient continued to take aspirin and plavix.The secondary intervention was performed and treatment included a balloon angioplasty.The physician determined that the occlusion/restenosis of the study lesion was probably related to the study product, possibly related to the study procedure, and the patient¿s pre-existing peripheral vascular disease caused or contributed to this event.(cirl reference# (b)(4)).On the same day, the patient was diagnosed with an ischemic ulcer on the right forefoot (site has been queried to evaluate if this ulcer was pre-existing or new onset).Treatment included surgical debridement.The physician determined that the ischemic ulcer was probably related to the study product, probably related to the study procedure, and the patient¿s pre-existing peripheral vascular disease caused or contributed to this event.(cirl reference# (b)(4)).Reference related reports # 3001845648-2017-00136, 3001845648-2017-00137 & 3001845648-2017-00139.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|
