|
As reported via the excellent study, a (b)(6)-year-old female (subject (b)(4)) with a history of ischemic stroke (1995), hyperlipidemia, hypertension, previous coronary artery bypass grafting (cabg), smoking (previous), arthritis, and class 1 obesity (bmi 32 kg/m2) experienced an in-hospital witnessed stroke on (b)(6) 2020 with mtici score of 0, nihss score of 26, and mrs score of 0 and experienced severe re-occlusion of the left middle cerebral artery (mca) on the same day.The event resolved on the same day with unspecified medication and cerebral angiogram with embolectomy.Per the principal investigator (pi), the event was possibly related to the study device and procedure.The patient underwent a mechanical thrombectomy using a 5x21 embotrap ii (et009521/19k109av) device on (b)(6) 2020.The suspected origin of embolism was cardioembolic.Intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (tpa) was not administered.The first pass made with the embotrap and mechanical pump aspiration at left m1 segment of the mca (2 min incubation) resulted in mtici score of 3 with clot retrieval via the pump.No further passes were made.The embotrap pass was made with an 0.090¿ cerebase da catheter with an 0.071¿ large bore catheter (lbc) via an 0.027¿ excelsior microcatheter.There were no reported intraoperative complications or study device deficiencies.The patient experienced re-occlusion of the left mca on the same day as the procedure which necessitated embolectomy.24-hour post-procedure nihss score was 4.The patient was discharged to a rehabilitation center on (b)(6) 2020.
|
|
Product complaint # (b)(4).The purpose of this mdr is to include the additional event information received on (b)(6)2020.Modified information received from the clinical database was reviewed.¿relationship to study device¿ value ¿possible¿ was changed to ¿not related¿.E-mail message received from the clinical study contact on (b)(6)2020 noted that he received word from the site that the principle investigator (pi) re-assessed the event as not related to the study device; however, the relatedness to procedure should remain as is.Since the pi felt the re-occlusion was not related to the study device, the event meet no longer meets mdr reporting criteria.
|