The delivery system was returned to edwards lifesciences for evaluation.During visual inspection, a kink was present near the middle of the flex shaft (likely due to packaging), and a cut was present on the inflation balloon.No other visual abnormalities were observed on the balloon or the delivery system.Evaluation of the balloon cover for damage (similar tear, puncture, kink, etc.) was not possible, as the balloon cover was not returned for evaluation.Due to the condition of the return device (a cut in the inflation balloon), further functional testing was unable to be performed.Dimensional analysis of the balloon found the balloon wall thickness met specifications.A cut in the balloon was confirmed.Engineering is unable to determine the exact root cause of the complaint based on available information.The review of manufacturing mitigations indicated that it was unlikely that a cut was present during manufacturing as devices are 100% leak tested and visually inspected for defects, including holes and leaks.In addition, all devices are checked for proximal balloon cover splits during balloon cover placement.The damage to the balloon was observed during device preparation and was not noted out of box.In this case, it is possible that excessive handling during prep of the device at the site caused damage to the balloon, which led to the observed leak.Other procedural factors such as removal of the proximal balloon cover and handling the stylet or handling other tools in close proximity may produce this type of damage.No manufacturing non-conformances were identified in the product evaluation, and no labeling/ifu deficiencies were identified.A review of complaint history revealed that the occurrence rate does not exceed the may 2016 control limits for these trend categories.Therefore no preventative or corrective actions are required.
|