(b)(4).During processing of this complaint, attempts were made to obtain complete event, patient and device information.The device was not returned for evaluation however; it is likely that device interactions during procedure contributed the reported stent migration.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 incidents reported from this lot.The investigation determined the reported difficulties and treatment appears related to operational circumstances of the procedure.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.The emboshield device referenced in b5 and d11 is filed under a separate medwatch report.
|
It was reported that the procedure was to treat a lesion in the heavily tortuous, heavily calcified internal carotid artery.After placement of the emboshield nav 6 embolic protection system, a 7-10 x 40 mm acculink self-expanding stent system (sess) was advanced without resistance to the lesion; and was successfully deployed.The stent was post-dilated with an unspecified balloon dilatation catheter.During removal of the nav 6 device; when pulling the barewire and the filter resistance was felt with the anatomy, and the deployed acculink stent was pulled into the carotid common artery.No further treatment was performed in the internal carotid artery.The acculink stent remains well apposed in healthy tissue in the common carotid artery.There was no adverse patient sequela and no clinically significant delay during the procedure.
|