|
It was reported that the procedure was to treat a perforation in the mid left anterior descending (mlad) artery with heavy calcification.The 3.5x16mm graftmaster covered stent was implanted at the perforation; however, the stent failed to seal the perforation.Therefore another 3.5x16mm graftmaster was implanted and the perforation still did not seal.A 2.8x16mm was then implanted and the perforation was noted to not seal.Next a 4x16mm graftmaster stent was attempted to be advanced; however, the 4x16mm graftmaster stent failed to cross the first previously implanted 3.5x16mm graftmaster stent.Therefore the 4x16mm graftmaster stent was removed from the patient.Due to the perforation not being sealed and continuing to ooze, pericardiocentesis was performed and then open heart surgery was performed to patch the perforation.There was no adverse patient sequela.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 did not indicate a lot specific quality issue.A conclusive cause for the reported patient-device incompatibility (failure to seal) could not be determined; however, the reported difficult to advance and subsequent treatment appear to be related to the operational context of the procedure.Patient-device incompatibility (failure to seal the perforation) 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.Based on the information provided and without the device to examine, the reported patient-device incompatibility (failure to seal) cannot be confirmed.In addition, it is likely the device interacted with the heavily calcified lesion during advancement, contributing to the reported difficulty to advance/position (crossability).Due to the perforation not being sealed and continuing to ooze, the physician used a catheter for pericardiocentesis, and then open-heart surgery was performed to patch the perforation.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design, or labeling.The additional devices referenced in b5 are filed under separate medwatch report numbers.
|