|
The patient was undergoing a thrombectomy procedure to treat an occlusion in the left inferior division m2 segment.Access was obtained with a zoom 88 guide catheter over a glidewire.The zoom 88 was positioned in the proximal cervical internal carotid artery (ica) and the glidewire was removed.A guidewire, third-party microcatheter, and a zoom 55 aspiration catheter were advanced to the face of the clot.The microcatheter and guidewire were then removed, and manual aspiration was applied to the zoom 55.Angiography was performed, and no significant change was observed.During the second pass, the treating physician removed the zoom 55 and advanced a zoom 71 and applied manual aspiration using the same process as in the first pass.Angiography was repeated and evidence of stenosis/dissection was observed in the superior m2 segment, which the physician attributed to catheter agitation.For the third pass, the zoom 71 was removed, and the same zoom 55 was advanced over the same guidewire.A new third-party microcatheter and a stent retriever were then advanced to the face of the clot.Aspiration was applied to the zoom 55.Angiography showed the occlusion had worsened and was now down to the origin of the inferior m2 segment.In the fourth pass, the zoom 55 was removed from the patient, and the procedure was completed using a third-party aspiration catheter, zoom 88 and third-party microcatheter angiography demonstrated successful recanalization consistent with tici 2c flow; however, there was evidence of dissection/stenosis beyond the origin of the left inferior m2 segment.It is unknown if the dissection/stenosis was present prior to the procedure.Approximately 5 milligram of verapamil was administered to slow down the blood flow.No device malfunctions were reported, and all devices were discarded.Two days post procedure, the patient was discharged without any patient sequelae.
|
|
The devices were discarded after use and therefore not available for return and investigation.There were no device deficiencies reported related to the zoom 71 or zoom 55.The exact root cause for the dissection is unknown.Based on the case images and information provided it is unclear if the dissection/stenosis was present prior to the procedure or caused by the zoom devices, guidewire, or third-party aspiration catheter.The manufacturing records for the zoom devices were reviewed and demonstrated that the product met all the design and manufacturing specifications.The following mfr # were submitted: (b)(4).
|