(b)(4).During processing of this complaint, attempts were made to obtain complete event, patient and device information.A visual and functional inspection was performed on the returned device.The reported material deformation was confirmed.Additionally, the stent implant was stationary on the balloon, but not between the markers.The reported failure to advance could not be tested as it was based on operational circumstances.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 did not indicate a lot specific quality issue.The investigation determined that the reported difficulties appear to be related to circumstances of the procedure as it is likely the device interacted with the previously implanted stent during advancement resulting in the reported failure to advance and material deformation.Further interaction with the previously implanted stent in addition to the challenging anatomy during advancement/retraction of the device likely contributed to the noted stent movement.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture or labeling of the device.
|
It was reported that the procedure was to treat a lesion in the heavily tortuous, heavily calcified, 97% stenosed, ostium of the circumflex (cx) coronary artery.A 2.5 x 12 mm xience alpine stent delivery system (sds) was advanced toward the lesion, but met resistance with the previously implanted xience alpine stent in the ostium of the left anterior descending (lad) and would not cross.The sds was removed from the anatomy and the stent struts were found to be flared.The procedure was stopped at that point.There was no reported adverse patient sequela.No additional information was provided.Returned device analysis noted that the stent had moved on the balloon.The stent was stationary on the balloon, but not between the markers.
|