|
It was reported that the 2.0 solid stealth 360 peripheral orbital atherectomy device (oad) was successfully used for treatment of moderately calcified, non-tortuous lesion in superficial femoral artery (sfa) through pedal access of the posterior tibial artery (pt) with 6f sheath.During oad removal resistance was felt and perforation was observed.A foam sealant agent was used to control the bleeding and the patient was transferred to acute care for surgical intervention.Surgical repair was completed without complication.As of (b)(6) 2025 the patient remained in inpatient status, in stable condition.In the physician's opinion, the sheath was the cause of the event.
|
|
It was reported that the 2.0 solid stealth 360 peripheral orbital atherectomy device (oad) was successfully used for treatment of moderately calcified, non-tortuous lesion in superficial femoral artery (sfa) through pedal access of the posterior tibial artery (pt) with 6f sheath.During oad removal resistance was felt and perforation was observed.A foam sealant agent was used to control the bleeding and the patient was transferred to acute care for surgical intervention.Surgical repair was completed without complication.As of (b)(6) 2025 the patient remained in inpatient status, in stable condition.In the physician's opinion, the sheath was the cause of the event.
|
|
A visual inspection, functional testing, dimensional analysis, and detailed analysis were performed on the returned device.The reported difficulty removing the oad from the introducer sheath, and perforated vessel could not be confirmed through analysis due to the operational context of the reported issues.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 removing the oad from the introducer sheath, and perforated vessel appear to be related to circumstances of the procedure.There was no damage or abnormalities identified with the driveshaft or handle assembly that would have contributed to the reported complaint.However, detailed analysis showed that the oad had experienced stall events near the end of the procedure.It is unknown if the stall events are related to the reported compliant.A conclusive cause for the reported perforation of vessels, and the relationship to the product, if any, cannot be determined.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: d9, g3, g6, h2, h3, h6.H6: codes 4755, 4118, 3233, 11 no longer apply.
|