Manufacturer¿s ref.No (b)(4).Information regarding patient identifier, date of birth, weight, race, and ethnicity were not provided.Section e.1: the initial reporter phone: (b)(6).The initial reporter email address was not available / reported.Based on complaint information, the device is not available to be returned for analysis.Lake region medical performed a review of the device history records relative to the manufacturing, inspection, and packaging of the lot 8645720.The history record indicates this product was final inspection tested at lake region medical and was determined to be acceptable.Product analysis cannot be conducted as the product was not returned for analysis.No determination of causes and possible contributing factors could be made.As such, the investigation will be closed.With the information available and without the complaint product available to be returned for analysis, the reported product issue documented in the complaint cannot be confirmed through functional evaluation and analysis.Based on the manufacturing documentation review, there is no indication that the event is related to the device manufacturing process.Assignment of root cause for the event remains speculative and inconclusive, based on the limited information provided and without the return of the complaint device; however, it is possible that clinical and procedural factors, including device manipulation / interaction may have contributed to the reported failure.As part of the post market surveillance program, information from this complaint is trended for statistical signals and corrective / preventive action may be triggered at a later time.Since there was no evidence to suggest the event was related to a manufacturing or design issue, no corrective actions will be taken at this time.This report is being submitted pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been investigated or verified prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by cerenovus, or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the product, cerenovus, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial report, a follow-up report will be filed as appropriate.Missing information from this report is identified as blank; this information was not provided in the reported event or available at the time of report submission.The manufacturer will submit a supplemental report if new facts arise which materially alter information submitted in a previous mdr report.Additional information will be submitted within 30 days of receipt.
|
The healthcare professional reported that during an endovascular embolization procedure, the 4mm x 23mm no tip enterprise¿ 2 vascular reconstruction device (encr402300 / (b)(6)) was placed and released in the target site.The stent proximal markers did not fully open or expand as intended.The physician used ¿other brand device¿ to capture the stent and removed it from the patient and retracted the 150cm x 5cm prowler select plus microcatheter (606s255x / lot# unknown).The physician replaced the stent and used the same microcatheter to complete the procedure; the procedure was reportedly extended by approximately 20 minutes.There was no report of any negative patient impact.On 13-mar-2024, additional information was received.Per the information, the patient is a 55-year-old male.The procedure was a stent-assisted coil embolization of a 3mm x 4.5mm unruptured saccular aneurysm.There were no vessel nor aneurysm factors that may have contributed to the incomplete expansion of the stent.There was no evidence of obstructed blood flow due to the reported issue.The temperature indicator label on the inner pouch was checked and found to be within acceptable criteria.There had been no resistance during the advancement of the stent.The device used to capture the stent was another brand.The information confirmed there was no negative patient impact; the physician did not consider the 20-minute procedure extension to be clinically significant.
|