|
It was reported that the procedure was an ethanol effusion of the vein of marshall.The 2.5x8mm trek balloon dilatation catheter (bdc) was used in a procedure with contrast mix of 5ml iodin and 15ml saline.The balloon was inflated one time to 3 atmospheres, but there was difficulty deflating it.Negative pressure was held for 5-10 seconds; however, the balloon only partially deflated.The bdc was removed with the balloon partially inflated.There was no adverse patient effect and no clinically significant delay reported in the procedure.No additional information was provided.
|
|
Visual, dimensional, and functional inspections were performed on the returned device.The reported deflation issue could not be replicated in a testing environment due to the condition of the returned device.The reported difficulty removing the device could not be replicated in a testing environment as it was based on operational circumstances.It was reported that the balloon was removed partially inflated.It should be noted that the coronary dilatation catheters (cdc), trek over the wire (otw) and mini trek otw, global instructions for use (ifu), states: withdraw the deflated dilatation catheter and guide wire from the guiding catheter through the hemostatic valve.In this case, it is likely that the balloon being removed partially inflated resulted in the reported difficulty removing the device.The ifu also states: specified that the contrast medium diluted 1:1 with normal saline.It is unknown if the ifu violation caused or contributed to the reported complaint.Additionally, the ifu states: the trek otw and mini trek otw coronary dilatation catheter is indicated for: balloon dilatation of the stenotic portion of a coronary artery or bypass graft stenosis, for the purpose of improving myocardial perfusion, balloon dilatation of a coronary artery occlusion, for the purpose of restoring coronary flow in patients with st-segment elevation myocardial infarction, balloon dilatation of a stent after implantation (balloon models 2.00 mm ¿ 5.00 mm only).It is unknown if the ifu violation caused or contributed to the reported complaint.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.The investigation was unable to determine a conclusive cause for the reported deflation issue; however, the reported difficulty removing the device appears to be related to circumstances of the procedure.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respects to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|