| Model Number |
B2070-200 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Difficult to Remove (1528); Material Rupture (1546); Material Separation (1562)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
08/08/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Manufacturer's investigation is still pending at this time.Results and conclusions will be provided in the final report.The additional device referenced in b5 is filed under a separate medwatch report number.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that the procedure was performed to treat a mildly calcified and tortuous lesion in the left external iliac artery.Reportedly a 7.0 x 200mm armada 35 balloon dilatation catheter (bdc) was used for dilatation; however, the balloon ruptured during the first inflation at 6 atmospheres (atm).The bdc was removed, and another armada 35 of the same size was used, however during its third inflation the balloon ruptured at 6atm.The device was removed with slight resistance and was noted to have a separated tip.The separated portion was stuck right at the skin level therefore it was simply withdrawn with the delivery sheath.A new armada 35 was used and the procedure was completed.There were no adverse patient effects and no clinically significant delay in the procedure.No additional information was provided.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Visual analysis was performed on the returned device.The reported balloon rupture and separation were confirmed.The reported difficulty removing the device could not be replicated in a testing environment as it was based on operational circumstances.The 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 history of the reported lot did not indicate a lot specific quality issue.The investigation determined the reported balloon rupture, difficulty removing the device and separation appear to be related to operational context.There was no leak noted during preparation or during the first two inflations, which suggests a product quality issue did not contribute to the reported difficulty.In this case, it is likely that the balloon interacted with the mildly calcified and mildly tortuous anatomy such that the balloon became damaged and ruptured during inflation.Additionally, during removal there was resistance as the ruptured balloon material likely interacted with the patient anatomy causing the balloon material to separate.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|