(b)(4).Evaluation summary: visual, dimensional and functional inspections were performed on the returned device.The reported separation, failure to advance and device operating differently than expected was confirmed.A review of the lot history record revealed no manufacturing nonconformities that would have contributed to this complaint.Additionally, a review of the complaint history of the reported lot was performed and revealed no other incidents.It should be noted that the hi torque guide wire instructions for use states: do not: push, auger, withdraw or torque a guide wire that meets resistance.Additionally, the ifu states: do not: allow the guide wire tip to remain in a prolapsed condition.The investigation determined the reported difficulties to be related to the patient anatomical conditions and the patient effect appears to be related to operational circumstances of the procedure.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|
It was reported that the procedure was to treat a chronic total occlusion in the heavily calcified proximal left anterior descending (lad) coronary artery.The ht cross-it 100 xt guide wire was advanced to the lesion, but met resistance and would not cross.The physician tried torqueing the wire, but the tip got stuck in the plaque and formed a loop.When the guide wire was removed from the anatomy, the loop that had formed broke off.It was determined that the separated tip was in the subintimal of the lad; therefore, no attempt was made to remove the tip from the anatomy.An ht cross-it 200 xt guide wire was then selected for the procedure, but it met resistance and would not cross.The guide wire was removed from the anatomy and the procedure was stopped at that point.The patient did not complain of any chest pain or discomfort following the procedure.No additional information was provided.
|