| Catalog Number |
1013469-150 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Deflation Problem (1149); Improper or Incorrect Procedure or Method (2017)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
12/18/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Manufacturer's investigation is still pending at this time.Results and conclusions will be provided in the final report.H6: medical device problem code 2017 - improper or incorrect procedure or method - contrast incorrect.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that the procedure was to treat a lesion in superficial femoral artery (sfa).The 5.5x150mm armada balloon dilatation catheter (bdc) was used in the procedure and the balloon was inflated twice to nominal pressure; however, during the second inflation the balloon failed to deflate, although negative was held for 3 minutes.The balloon was only partially able to be deflated; therefore, the balloon was cut to allow contrast to be removed from the balloon, so the bdc could be removed from the patient.There was no adverse patient sequela and no clinically significant delay reported in the procedure.No additional information was provided.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Visual 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.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 that the contrast mix used during the procedure was 30 percent contrast and 70 percent saline.It should be noted that the percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (pta) catheter, armada 18, ce, instructions for use (ifu, materials required section) specified that the contrast is diluted 1:1 with normal saline.In this case, since the contrast ratio used was less than the required percentage it is unknown if the ifu violation caused or contributed to the reported complaint.The investigation was unable to determine a conclusive cause for the reported deflation issue.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respects to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|