The device was returned for analysis.The reported failure to advance could not be confirmed.The reported material separation (stent) and material separation (shaft) were not confirmed.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 similar incidents from this lot.The investigation determined the reported failure to advance appears to be related to circumstances of the procedure as it is likely the device interacted with the calcified lesion during advancement causing the reported failure to advance.The investigation was unable to determine a conclusive cause for the reported material separation (stent and shaft) and the reported foreign body in patient as the complete device was returned for analysis and the reported material separations were not confirmed.It is possible the noted stent damage identified during return evaluation of the device may have been misidentified as a stent break; however, this cannot be confirmed.Additionally, the patient effect of serious injury/illness or impairment appears to be related to operational context.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling.
|