As the lot number of the subject device has not been provided, a lot history record review could not be performed.The event is currently under investigation.The information provided by bard represents all of the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bard.
|
As the lot number of the subject device was not provided, a device history record review could not be performed.As part of all complaint investigations, an attempt was made to evaluate the subject device as well as the device usage.In this case, no sample or image was provided for evaluation.Therefore, the reported event could not be reproduced.Potential contributing factors to the reported event have been considered.Previous investigations of similar complaints have been reviewed.An inadvertent movement of the hand or incorrect holding of the delivery system during stent release, an insufficient pre-dilatation, highly calcified vessels, the patient's condition or the vessel anatomy may result in an irregular stent placement.In this case, no information regarding the anatomy or the procedure performed was provided.On the basis of the information available and as no sample was returned, a definite root cause for the event reported could not be determined.There is no indication for a mislabeling of the delivery system or the stent.The ifu supplied with this product sufficiently describes the correct application of the device.Also the ifu states: "if excessive force is felt during stent deployment, do not force the stent system.Remove the stent system as possible, and replace with a new unit.".
|
It was reported that after deployment of the stent for a bilateral stenting, the stent was found to be shorter than labeled on the box.Reportedly, it deployed only half of its length forcing the physician to use an additional stent to complete the procedure.There was no reported patient injury.
|