|
It was reported that the procedure was to treat a perforation of a lesion in the proximal left anterior descending (plad) artery.Balloon tamponade was initially started for 5 minutes.There was persistent leaking in the plad and the 2.8x26mm graftmaster covered stent was implanted at 14 atmospheres (atms) with the aid of a 6french (f) guideliner; however, there was persistent bleeding.With great difficulty, a compliant balloon was advanced through the graftmaster to further post dilate the stent.Suspect active bleeding was due to lack of stent apposition due to under deployed stents from before.Then used another 3.0mm non-compliant balloon to further post dilate the graftmaster stent at high pressures.Subsequent angiography revealed resolution of bleeding.During this time the patient was having worsening cardiogenic shock and placed an impella catheter.There were no further attempts at recanalization of this heavily stented artery and the patient was transferred to intensive care unit (icu) in critical condition.No additional information was provided.
|
|
The device was not returned for evaluation.Production record and corrective and preventive actions (capa) reviews were performed and revealed no indication of a product quality issue.Additionally, a review of the complaint handling database identified no similar complaints from this lot.It should be noted that the graftmaster rapid exchange (rx) coronary stent graft system, domestic, instructions for use (ifu), states; deploy the stent graft slowly by pressurizing the delivery system in 2-atm increments, every 5 seconds, until the stent graft is completely expanded.A conclusive cause for the reported patient-device incompatibility (failure to seal the perforation and wall apposition) could not be determined; however, the subsequent treatment appears to be related to the operational context of the procedure.A conclusive cause for the reported patient effect, and the relationship to the product, if any, cannot be determined.Patient-device incompatibility (failure to seal the perforation and wall apposition) may be attributed to several factors including, but not limited to, patient anatomical morphology, product size selection, deployment technique (non-central positioning of stent graft over perforation or inadequate overlapping), interference from previously deployed devices, or growth of perforation during deployment.It was reported that suspect active bleeding was due to lack of stent apposition due to under deployed stents from before.In this case, it is also possible that growth of the perforation during deployment may have contributed to the reported patient-device incompatibility (failure to seal/leak) and the anatomical conditions and/or previously implanted stents may have contributed to the reported patient-device incompatibility (wall apposition); however, based on the information provided and without the device to examine, this cannot be confirmed.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design, or labeling.Additional information: d4 - model # added.Corrections: d1 - brand name updated.D3 - name updated.D3 - address, city, postal code updated.H6: medical device problem code 2682 - was added.H6: health effect - code 4582 was removed, health effect - clinical code 2262 and health effect - impact code 4607 were added.
|