| Model Number |
A2020-200 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Difficult to Remove (1528); Material Separation (1562)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Foreign Body In Patient (2687)
|
| Date of Event |
01/26/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that the patient presented with an acute myocardial infarction (mi).The procedure was to treat a heavily calcified, mildly tortuous, 90% stenosed, de novo lesion in the lesion in the right superior femoral artery (sfa).A 5.0x100mm on 135cm armada 35 balloon dilatation catheter (bdc) balloon was advanced to the lesion but ruptured before reaching nominal pressure during the first inflation.A 5.0x150mm 135cm armada 35 bdc was used to continue the procedure.A 6.0x200mm on 135cm armada 35 bdc balloon was advanced to the lesion but ruptured before reaching nominal pressure during the first inflation.A 6.0x100mm 150cm non-abbott device was used to continue the procedure.A 2.0x200mm on 150cm armada 14 bdc was advanced, but the balloon tip and distal shaft became stuck in the vessel while pulling back the balloon and separated.The plan was to schedule a retrieval of the separated device that remained in the patient, the next day, but due to cath lab availability, it was postponed one more day.The patient passed away on the second day after the angioplasty procedure due to the effects of the mi.In the physician's opinion, the death and mi, were not related to any of the abbott devices.No additional information was provided.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The device is expected to be returned for investigation.It has not yet been received.A follow-up report will be submitted with all additional relevant information.The 5x100mm armada 35 and the 6x200mm armada 35 referenced in b5 are filed under separate medwatch report numbers.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Visual inspection was performed on the returned device.The reported separations were confirmed.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 of the reported lot did not indicate a lot specific quality issue.The reported patient effect of death is listed in the percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (pta) catheter, armada 14, global, instructions for use (ifu) as a known patient effect.The investigation determined the reported difficulty removing the device, separations, foreign body in patient and serious injury/illness/impairment appear to be related to operational context.It was reported by the account that per the physician opinion, the armada 14, did not cause or contribute to the patient's death in any way.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to design, manufacture or labeling of the device.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|