It was reported that the procedure to treat a heavily calcified left anterior descending artery.The 2.5x18mm nc trek balloon dilatation catheter (bdc) was inserted and advanced to the target lesion without difficulty.After inflating and fully deflating the balloon, the bdc was attempted to be removed; however, the bdc met resistance with anatomy.Additional force was applied to the device and once removed it was observed that a portion of the balloon had detached.The separated portion was removed via snare.Two unspecified stents were implanted to successfully complete the procedure.There was no adverse patient sequela and no clinically significant delay in the procedure.No additional information was provided.
|
Visual inspection was performed on the returned device.The reported balloon separation was not confirmed.Although, the separation on the returned device was not confirmed at the balloon, it is likely that the noted separation at the inner and outer member is what the account perceived as the reported separation.The reported difficulty removing the device could not be replicated in a testing environment as it was based on operational circumstances.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 and/or complaints from this lot.It was reported by the account that the balloon interacted with the heavily calcified anatomy during retraction, resulting in the reported difficulty removing the device.Additional force was applied, and the balloon/shaft ultimately separated.It should be noted that the coronary dilatation catheters (cdc), nc trek rx, global, instruction for use states: if resistance is felt, determine the cause before proceeding.Continuing to advance or retract the catheter while under resistance may result in damage to the vessels and / or damage / separation of the catheter.In this case, it is likely that the violation of the ifu contributed to the reported separation as the device separated after force was applied.Additional treatment with a snare was performed to remove the separated portion of the device.The investigation determined the reported difficulty removing the device and unexpected medical intervention appear to be related to circumstances of the procedure and the reported separation appears to be related to user error/operational context.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respects to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|