(b)(4).Udi#: in the absence of a reported part number, the udi cannot be calculated.There was no reported device malfunction and the product was not returned as the scaffold remains in the anatomy.A review of the lot history record and complaint history of the reported device could not be conducted because the part and lot numbers were not provided.The reported patient effects of myocardial infarction and restenosis, as listed in the bioresorbable vascular scaffold (bvs) system, absorb, instructions for use are known adverse events associated with the use of a coronary scaffold in native coronary arteries.Based on the case information, a conclusive cause for the reported patient effects, and the relationship to the product, if any, cannot be determined.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to design, manufacture or labeling of the device.The absorb device is currently not commercially available in the u.S; however, it is similar to a device sold in the us.
|
It was reported that the absorb scaffold was implanted in the left anterior descending artery in (b)(6) 2014.Optical coherence tomography (oct) imaging at the time showed good wall apposition.The patient returned for a follow-up 6 months later at which time angiography and oct showed that the scaffold was endothelialised well.The patient returned in (b)(6) 2016 and a narrowing (restenosis) at the proximal edge of the scaffold was identified, which was treated with an unknown drug eluting stent (des).No oct was done at that time.On (b)(6) 2017, the patient returned with st elevated myocardial infarction (stemi) and oct showed a severe narrowing in and beyond both the scaffold and the des segments.A xience des was implanted for treatment with a good patient outcome.The physician believes that this was due to disease progression, as the patient is a heavy smoker and has other co-morbidities.No additional information was provided.
|