Device is a combination product.Complainant name: (b)(6) hosp.Device evaluated by mfr: the device was not returned for analysis.The manufacturing batch record review confirmed that the device met all material, assembly and performance specifications.The investigation conclusion is anticipated procedural complication as the event is due to a known physiological effect of the procedure noted within the directions for use, and/or device labeling.(b)(4).
|
(b)(6) study.It was reported that restenosis occurred.In (b)(6) 2016, the patient presented with unstable angina (braunwald classification: iiib) and was referred for cardiac catheterization.The target lesion was located in the mid left anterior descending artery (lad) with 90% stenosis and was 16mm long with a reference vessel diameter of 2.75mm.The target lesion was treated with pre-dilatation and placement of a 2.75mm x 20mm study stent with 0% residual stenosis.The following day, the patient was discharged on dual antiplatelet therapy.In (b)(6) 2017, the patient visited the study hospital reporting intermittent palpitations, substernal chest pressure (nitroglycerin 5-6 times over last month) and was in sinus.The patient also reported increasing fatigue over the last 6 months.In (b)(6) 2017, the patient presented with chest pain and abnormal stress test.The patient was hospitalized for scheduled cardiac catheterization.Coronary angiography revealed 80% stenosis in mid lad, immediately prior to the study stent which was open.The 80% stenosis at mid lad was treated with 3.0x16mm synergy stent implanted within 5mm of the study stent.Post-dilatation the residual stenosis was 0%.The proximal lad also had revascularization.The following day, the event was considered as resolved and the subject was discharged on the same day.
|