It was reported that the procedure was to treat a perforation in the left renal artery.The patient presented with hypertension; therefore, balloon angioplasty was performed on (b)(6) 2015 with a 2.5 x 8 mm and a 2.75 x 12 mm trek balloon dilatation catheter (bdc).Additionally, a 2.5 x 12 mm absorb gt1 scaffold was implanted in the lesion.Then, on (b)(6) 2016, the patient was re-hospitalized for persistent hypertension and an ultrasound revealed a narrowing in the left renal artery.It was also noted that the proximal portion of the absorb gt1 scaffold had fractured and embolized into the abdominal aorta.The remaining portion of the implanted scaffold was post-dilated with a 2.75 x 12 mm nc trek bdc, and it was noted that there was no waist.Attempts were then made to advance an intravascular ultrasound probe in the lesion; however, this device caused the remaining portion of the implanted absorb gt1 scaffold to embolize distally into the left lower part of the renal artery.On (b)(6) 2017, the patient was re-hospitalized and balloon angioplasty was performed in the lesion.Then, on (b)(6) 2018, an unspecified.014 grand slam guide wire was advanced and balloon angioplasty was performed with non-abbott bdcs and cutting balloons.The last post-dilatation of a non-abbott bdc caused a perforation in the lesion which was treated with a 2.8 x 16 mm graftmaster covered stent, which was inflated at 22 atmospheres.The perforation was sealed and a portion of the stent protrudes into the aorta without causing obstruction.There was no adverse patient sequela reported.No additional information was provided.
|
(b)(4).The device was not returned for evaluation.A review of the lot history record and complaint history of the reported lot could not be conducted because the lot number was not provided.The reported patient effects of embolism, hypertension and restenosis, as listed in the absorb gt1 instructions for use (electronic instructions for use (ifu), are known adverse events associated with the use of a coronary scaffold in native coronary arteries.The investigation was unable to determine a conclusive cause for the reported scaffold fracture and patient effects.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling; therefore, no corrective action is required.
|