It was reported that the procedure was to treat a 90% stenosed de novo lesion in the 1st obtuse marginal artery with mild calcification and moderate tortuosity.A 2.50x23mm xience skypoint stent was implanted; however, the stent was not long enough for the lesion, so a 3.00x12mm xience skypoint stent delivery system (sds) was advanced, but met resistance due to the tortuosity of the vessel.The device was re-positioned and attempted again to advance to the lesion.A false lumen may have been created and the vessel appeared damaged.The 3.0 x 12 mm xience skypoint was removed from the patient.Upon removal, the distal edge stent struts were noted to be flared and the proximal stent was noted to be deformed.There was no clinically significant delay reported in the procedure.No further treatment to the patient was provided.No additional information was provided.
|
A visual inspection was performed on the returned device.The reported failure to advance and difficult to remove could not be tested as they were based on operational context.The reported material deformation and deformation due to compressive stress was confirmed.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 of the reported lot did not indicate a lot specific quality issue.The investigation determined the reported difficulties and subsequent treatment appear to be related to the operational context of the procedure; however, a conclusive cause for the reported patient effect, and the relationship to the product, if any, cannot be determined.In this case, it is likely that the stent delivery system interacted with the patient¿s mildly calcified, moderately tortuous, and 90% stenosed lesion during advancement, as resistance was noted, resulting in the reported failure to advance.Manipulation of the device during its interaction with the lesion likely resulted in the reported stent material deformation and hypotube deformation due to compressive stress.Additionally, it was reported that the device encountered difficulty during removal with the guide catheter, likely due to the damaged stent.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design, or labeling; therefore, no product-related corrective action will be implemented in this case.
|