|
Visual inspection was performed on the returned device.The reported balloon rupture was confirmed.The reported difficulty to advance and entrapment of device could not be replicated in a testing environment as it was based on operational circumstances.Production record and corrective and preventative actions (capa) reviews were performed and revealed no indication of a product quality issue.Additionally, a query of the complaint handling database for the reported lot revealed there is no indication of a lot specific issue.Based on the reported information and the observations from the returned analysis, the investigation determined that the reported difficulty advancing the device, balloon rupture, entrapment of device and surgical intervention appear to be related to circumstances of the procedure.It was reported that the balloon dilatation catheter bdc interacted with the previously implanted stent resulting in the reported difficulty advancing the device.There was no leak noted during preparation or during the first initial inflation, which suggests a product quality issue did not contribute to the reported difficulties.In this case, it is likely that the balloon interacted with the heavily calcified anatomy and/or previously implanted stent, such that the balloon became damages and ruptured.In addition, the resistance noted during removal was likely the result of the ruptured balloon material catching on the anatomy and/or accessory device during removal and becoming stuck.A cut down procedure was performed to successfully remove the device.Based on the results of the complaint investigation there is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|