| Catalog Number |
AVFM10080 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Restenosis (4576)
|
| Date of Event |
10/24/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported through the results of the clinical trial that approximately three years and eleven days post angioplasty and stent placement procedure, the subject underwent av access circuit re-intervention on the target left arm cephalic vein stenosis.It was further reported that a standard percutaneous transluminal angioplasty was performed during re-intervention on the target lesion cephalic vein with initial stenosis of 70% and final residual stenosis of 0%.Reportedly, the re-intervention was successful and no new access was created.The current status of the patient was unknown.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H10: as the lot number for the device was provided, a review of the device history records will be performed.The sample was not returned to the manufacturer for inspection/evaluation.Therefore, the investigation of the reported event is inconclusive.Based upon the available information, the definitive root cause for this event is unknown.The instructions for use (ifu) is adequate for the reported device/patient code(s) and provides general instructions for use, as well as warnings, precautions and potential complications associated with the device.Upon receipt of new or additional information, a follow-up report will be submitted as applicable.H11: section a through f ¿ the information provide by bd represents all the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant/reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bd.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H11: manufacturing review: based on the information available it is not reasonably suggested that a manufacturing process may have caused or contributed to the reported issue.However, the lot history records of this lot were reviewed with special attention to the manufacturing and inspection of this product and the product was found to have met the specification prior to shipment.Investigation summary: the stent remains implanted.No x-ray images were provided for evaluation.There was no specific device deficiency reported and no indication for irregular stent placement.Pre and post dilation was performed.Based on the information available the investigation of a potential relation between stent placement and the restenosis of the target lesion is closed with inconclusive result.There was no reported specific deficiency of the placed stent; a root cause for the alleged restenosis could not be determined.Labeling review: relevant labeling applicable for this product was reviewed; it was found that the ifu sufficiently address the potential risk associated with the use of the covera vascular covered stent.Based on the ifu complications and adverse events may include the usual complications associated with endovascular stent and covered stent placement and dialysis shunt revisions, which includes obstruction of flow and restenosis of the target vessel.G3, h6 (method).Section a through f: the information provide by bd represents all the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant/reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bd.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported through the results of the clinical trial that approximately three years and eleven days post angioplasty and stent placement procedure, the subject underwent av access circuit re-intervention on the target left arm cephalic vein stenosis.It was further reported that a standard percutaneous transluminal angioplasty was performed during re-intervention on the target lesion cephalic vein with initial stenosis of 70% and final residual stenosis of 0%.Reportedly, the re-intervention was successful and no new access was created.The current status of the patient was unknown.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|