Analysis: the sample was not returned from the user facility; therefore, a device evaluation is unable to be performed.A lot history review revealed 5 additional reocclusion complaints were associated with this lot.A review of the device history record (dhr) indicates the lot was manufactured to specification.Conclusion: the actual sample was not received for evaluation.The dhr found nothing to indicate a manufacturing related cause for this event.The investigator assessed that the event was probably related to the study device.Based on the instructions for use (ifu), the occurrence of reocclusion is an inherent risk of any pta procedure, and has been reported in clinical trials of drug coated balloons.If additional information becomes known to the manufacturer, a supplemental report will be provided with all relevant information.The information provided by bard represents all of the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant / reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bard.
|
It was reported through a clinical registry that during the index procedure, a lutonix percutaneous transluminal drug coated balloon (dcb) dilatation catheter was used to treat the target lesion in the distal right superficial femoral artery (sfa).Approximately 23 months after the index procedure, the patient¿s right distal sfa vasculature was reported to have no flow during the patient's 2 year follow-up and complaints of progressive claudication.No additional intervention has been performed at this time.No additional surgical intervention has been performed at this time, but the hcp did recommended continued anti-platelet therapy with follow up visits.The investigator assessed that the event was probably related to the study device.The sample was discarded by the user facility and is not available for evaluation.No adverse patient effects were reported.
|