|
The device was not returned for analysis.A review of the lot history record revealed no manufacturing nonconformities that would have contributed to this complaint.Additionally, a review of the complaint history did not indicate a lot specific quality issue.It was reported that the xience skypoint was advanced, but met resistance and was removed, then the same device was reinserted.It should be noted that the xience skypoint, everolimus eluting coronary stent system (eecss), electronic instructions for use (eifu) states: an unexpanded stent may be retracted into the guiding catheter one time only.An unexpanded stent should not be reintroduced into the artery once it has been pulled back into the guiding catheter.Subsequent movement in and out through the distal end of the guiding catheter should not be performed, as the stent may be damaged or dislodge during retraction back into the guiding catheter.It is unknown if the ifu deviation contributed to the reported event.The investigation determined the reported difficulties appear to be related to the operational context of the procedure, as it is likely the device interacted with the heavily calcified, heavily tortuous, 99% stenosed lesion during advancement, as resistance was noted, resulting in the reported failure to advance.Further interaction with the challenging anatomy during retraction of the device, as resistance was again noted, likely contributed to the reported difficult to remove.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling; therefore, no product-related corrective action will be implemented in this case.
|
|
It was reported that the procedure was to treat a heavily calcified, heavily tortuous, 99% stenosed lesion in the mid left anterior descending (mlad) artery.Pre-dilatation was performed and a 3.25x23mm xience skypoint drug eluting stent (des) was advanced towards the target lesion but could not cross the anatomy.The device was removed, and additional balloon dilatation was performed; however, the des still could not cross the anatomy after it was re-inserted and attempted to cross again.The des was removed a second time, with resistance met and a non-abbott device was used to cross the anatomy and successfully complete the procedure.There was no adverse patient effect and no clinically significant delay in the procedure.No additional information was provided.
|