Subsequent to the initial medwatch report, the following information was received: on (b)(6) 2015, the patient was admitted to the hospital.Another stent was implanted in the re-stenosed, left internal carotid artery stent.The re-stenosis resolved without sequela and on (b)(6) 2015 the patient was discharged from the hospital.There was no additional information provided.
|
(b)(4).It is indicated that the device is not returning for evaluation; therefore, a failure analysis of the complaint device could not be completed.A review of the lot history record revealed no non-conformances that would have contributed to the reported event.Based on the information reviewed, there is no indication of a product deficiency.
|
It was reported that on (b)(6) 2012, an acculink stent was implanted in the left internal carotid artery and the patient was discharged home on (b)(6) 2012.On (b)(6) 2014, during a follow-up visit, a carotid angiogram was performed showing 90% restenosis of the left internal common carotid at the distal stent portion.There was no treatment and no hospitalization.There was no additional information provided.
|
(b)(4).During processing of this complaint, attempts were made to obtain complete event, patient and device information.There was no reported device malfunction, and the product was not returned.The reported patient effect of stenosis is a known observed and potential patient effect as listed in the eifu, css, rx acculink, domestic, instructions for use (ifu).Although a conclusive cause for the reported patient effect, and the relationship to the product, if any, cannot be determined, there is no indication of a product quality deficiency with respect to manufacturing, design or labeling.
|