|
It was reported that the 1.25 micro solid diamondback 360 peripheral orbital atherectomy device (oad) was used for proximal-to-distal treatment of lesion in tibial artery through femoral artery access.Following the first treatment, angiographic images showed a particle separated from the oad crown.Upon oad removal, the crown was observed detached.The fragment was left in one of the tibial vessels as there was flow to other vessels.No attempts to snare the fragment was made.The procedure was aborted.The patient was stable and discharged the same day.There were no future plans to remove the fragment.
|
|
A visual inspection, functional testing, and detailed analysis were performed on the returned device.The reported crown separation is confirmed.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, a definitive cause for the reported crown separation could not be determined.Analysis of the driveshaft crown bond location found evidence of residual solder, indicating that the crown had been sufficiently bonded during manufacturing.Detailed analysis of the device showed that there had been longer than recommended spin times as well as 4 device stall events.This may have contributed to the crown separation; however this could not be confirmed.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.Updated: b5, g3, g6, h2, h3, h6, correction: h6: 2687 h6: codes 4438, 4755, 4118, 3233, and 11 no longer apply.
|
|
It was reported that the 1.25 micro solid diamondback 360 peripheral orbital atherectomy device (oad) was used for proximal-to-distal treatment of lesion in tibial artery through femoral artery access.Following the first treatment, angiographic images showed a particle separated from the oad crown.Upon oad removal, the crown was observed detached.The fragment size was unknown.It was unknown if the driveshaft fractured.The fragment was left in one of the tibial vessels as there was flow to other vessels.No attempts to snare the fragment was made.The procedure was aborted.The patient was stable and discharged the same day.There were no future plans to remove the fragment.
|