|
The device was received and investigated.Visual and functional inspections were performed on the returned balloon catheter and the reported balloon rupture was confirmed.Additionally, scratches were noted at the site of the rupture.A review of the lot history record identified no manufacturing nonconformities issued to the reported lot that would have contributed to this event.Based on the review of similar incidents there is no indication of a lot specific product quality issue.In this case, the device was prepped prior to use and inflated once without any leak or ruptures noted, which would suggest that the device was not damaged prior to use.The investigation determined the reported balloon rupture appears to be related to operational circumstances of the procedure.It is likely that during multiple inflations the balloon outer surface became compromised and/or damaged against the calcification resulting in the reported/noted balloon pinhole rupture during the second inflation.The noted scratch/scratches at the rupture site also suggests interaction causing damage to the outer surface of the balloon material.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 lesion located in the superficial femoral artery that was heavily calcified.The armada 35 balloon catheter was advanced to the lesion without issue.The balloon was used successfully the first time and was fine.The second time it was used, the balloon inflated to 6-8 atmospheres, but kept losing pressure and there was a suspected pinhole.There were no reported adverse patient effects and no clinically significant delay in the procedure.Another armada was used to complete the procedure.No additional information was provided.
|