It was reported that the procedure was to treat a 70% stenosed lesion in the proximal left anterior descending (lad) coronary artery.The 3.50x28mm xience xpedition stent delivery system was advanced to the lesion without issue and the stent implanted; however, the delivery system balloon failed to deflate.Multiple unsuccessful attempts were made to deflate/perforate the balloon.Finally the delivery system separated leaving the non-deflated balloon in proximal lad.After many trials to remove the balloon, it was successfully removed by trapping the balloon and removing it with the guide catheter.The stent was noted to be slightly deformed so some additional post-dilatation of the stent was performed.A proximal lad dissection was observed and another stent was implanted, successfully resolving the perforation.The patient did not experience any adverse sequela and a clinically significant delay in procedure was not reported.No additional information was provided.
|
The stent delivery system was returned for analysis without the stent as the stent was implanted.The reported material separation was confirmed.The reported difficulty to remove could not be replicated in a testing environment as it was related to operational context of the procedure.The reported material deformation could not be confirmed as the stent was not returned for evaluation.The reported failure to deflate could not be confirmed due to the condition the device was received for evaluation.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 reported patient effect of dissection is listed in the xience xpedition everolimus eluting coronary stent systems instructions for use (ifu) as a known patient effect of coronary stenting procedures.The investigation was unable to determine a conclusive cause for the reported failure to deflate.The shaft separation, material deformation, difficulty to remove and patient effect of dissection appear to be related to operational context of the procedure.Additionally, the reported treatments and removal of a foreign body appear to be related to operational context of the procedure.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design, or labeling.
|