As reported, an arterial perforation was noted at the distal edge of a precise over the wire (otw) nitinol sys, 9x40 stent.Initially the physician had deployed the stent with no issues.The stent was post dilated with an aviator.After the perforation was noted, a second precise stent (9x40) was placed and overlapped.The stents were post dilated with non-cordis balloons and the perforation appeared to have resolved.
|
After further review of additional information received the sections have been updated accordingly.As reported, an arterial perforation was noted at the distal edge of a precise over the wire (otw) nitinol sys, 9x40 stent.The lesion was mildly calcified and had moderate vessel tortuosity.The rate of stenosis was more than 60%.The device was stored and handled per the instructions for use (ifu).The device was prepped per the ifu and prepped normally.There was no difficulty tracking the stent deployment system through the lesion and there was no difficulty crossing the lesion.Initially the physician had deployed the stent with no issues.The stent was post dilated with an aviator.After the perforation was noted, a second precise stent (9x40) was placed and overlapped.The stents were post dilated with non-cordis balloons and the perforation appeared to have resolved.The patient¿s status is baseline.Additional procedural details were requested but are unknown.As reported, an arterial perforation was noted at the distal edge of a precise over the wire (otw) nitinol sys, 9x40 stent.The lesion was mildly calcified and had moderate vessel tortuosity.The rate of stenosis was more than 60%.The device was stored and handled per the instructions for use (ifu).The device was prepped per the ifu and prepped normally.There was no difficulty tracking the stent deployment system through the lesion and there was no difficulty crossing the lesion.Initially the physician had deployed the stent with no issues.The stent was post dilated with an aviator.After the perforation was noted, a second precise stent (9x40) was placed and overlapped.The stents were post dilated with non-cordis balloons and the perforation appeared to have resolved.The patient¿s status is baseline.Additional procedural details were requested but are unknown.The device was not returned for evaluation as it remains implanted.A review of the manufacturing documentation associated with lot 17337069 presented no issues during the manufacturing process that can be related to the reported event.Without procedural films for review, the reported perforation could not be confirmed and a clinical conclusion could not be determined as to the cause of the event.However, based on the available information, vessel characteristics and/or procedural factors may have contributed to the reported event.Usage of the product other than that indicated in the product's ifu, which is not intended as mitigation, may involve additional risks not described in the labeling.Vessel injury is a well-known complication of stent implantation.According to the ifu, ¿upon deployment, the stent forms an open lattice and pushes outward on the luminal surface, helping to maintain the patency of the vessel.Due to the self-expanding behavior of nitinol, the stents are indicated for placement into vessels that are 1-2 mm smaller in diameter than the unconstrained diameter of the stent¿.Given the limited information available for review at this time, there is nothing to suggest that the reported event is related to the design and manufacturing process of the device.Therefore no corrective action will be taken.
|