The device was not returned for analysis.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 identified no other similar incidents from this lot.As there was no damage noted to the device during the inspection prior to use, the investigation determined the reported difficulties appear to be related to circumstances of the procedure as it is likely that during advancement interaction with the mildly tortuous, heavily calcified and 85% stenosed anatomy resulted in compromising the stent such that during inflation resulted in the reported unintended system motion/stent dislodgement; thus resulting in the reported patient-device incompatibility/stent not fully apposed to the vessel wall.The treatment appears to be related to the operational context of the procedure as the physician implanted a same size xience xpedition over the dislodged xience xpedition stent to fully appose it to the vessel wall.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling.
|
It was reported that the procedure was to treat a mildly tortuous, heavily calcified mid left anterior descending artery that was 85% stenosed.When a 2.75x48mm xience xpedition stent was advanced to the lesion and inflated, it then dislodged only partially covering the target lesion and not fully apposed to the vessel wall.The physician then implanted a same size xience xpedition over the dislodged xience xpedition stent to fully appose it to the vessel wall.An additional stent was also used to cover part of the target lesion that was left uncovered.There was no adverse patient sequela and no clinically significant delay.No additional information was provided.
|