| Model Number |
DBP-200SOLID145 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Off-Label Use (1494); Improper or Incorrect Procedure or Method (2017)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Perforation of Vessels (2135)
|
| Date of Event |
10/30/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Variance permits numbering sequence to deviate from the definition of a manufacturer report number found in 21 cfr part 803.3 (m)(3), to avoid duplication of report numbers due to process transition.There may be gaps in numbering for reports submitted during the transition period.Manufacturer's investigation is still pending at this time.Results and conclusions will be provided in the final report.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a 2.0 solid diamondback 360 peripheral orbital atherectomy device (oad) was used for treatment of heavily calcified, 6.00mm-diameter lesion in right superficial femoral artery (sfa) via left common femoral artery (cfa).The oad was spun up to high speed to treat the entirety of the sfa.Prior to treatment, intravascular ultrasound (ivus) imaging was performed and it was noted that there was a short subintimal segment in the proximal sfa.Extravasation of contrast was noted in the proximal sfa after oad treatment.The perforation remained despite multiple extended unspecified balloon inflations.After ballooning, multiple non-abbott covered stents were used to cover the perforation.Ultimately, the incident resulted in a procedure time extension of over 30 min, but the patient remained stable both during and after the procedure.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The device was not returned for analysis.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 information received, the investigation determined that the reported perforated vessel appears to be related to operational context.In this case it is likely that the reported perforation a result of the reported sub-intimal use.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.H6: codes 1494, 4118, 3233, and 11 no longer apply.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Additional information was received.The physician was aware that oas is contraindicated for use in the subintimal space.In the physician's opinion, the perforation was caused by orbital atherectomy.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|