It was reported that the dragonfly optis was unable to cross the target lesion in the moderately calcified and tortuous lesion in the left anterior descending (lad) artery.A second guide wire was used to assist in advancement of the dragonfly but it prolapsed at the proximal lad.While trying to cross the distal lad lesion the dragonfly catheter prolapsed, but was able to cross.During the first pullback two dissections were visible in the proximal and distal lad.Three xience stents (3.0x18, 3.5x23, 2.75x18) were implanted to treat the dissections.No additional information was provided.
|
Visual and dimensional analysis were performed on the returned device.The reported difficult to advance and material too soft/flexible was unable to be confirmed due to the condition of the device.Visual analysis revealed multiple kinks in the window region 3mm distal to the lens.There were no other anomalies noted to the dragonfly.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 complaints reported from this lot.The investigation was unable to determine a cause for the reported difficult to advance and material too soft/flexible.It may be possible that challenging patient anatomical geometry affected the maneuverability of the device resulting in the difficulty advancing and subsequent device prolapse.However, this could not be confirmed.The patient effect of arterial dissection is listed in the instruction for use as a known adverse effect of intravascular imaging.A cause for the reported patient effect(s) of dissection and unexpected medical intervention, and the relationship to the product, if any, cannot be determined.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|