| Catalog Number |
ET309537 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Entrapment of Device (1212)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
07/17/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
A healthcare professional reported that this was a mechanical thrombectomy of the middle cerebral artery with segment m2 occlusion was initiated.Carotid artery stenting of common carotid artery was also performed concomitantly.When the aspiration catheter was inserted, it was unable to pass beyond the protage stent deployed in the common carotid artery.Then, an embotrap iii 5 mm x 37 mm (et309537, 24f016av) was delivered to the m2 occlusion site and deployed.After retrieving the thrombus and withdrawing it with the embotrap iii, the embotrap iii stent became caught on the protage in the common carotid artery and could not be removed.A 6fr inner catheter was inserted to retrieve the embotrap iii stent.The embotrap iii was pulled from the patient¿s body, and the procedure was successfully completed.There was no negative impact to the patient.A continuous flush was unknown.Other concomitant devices were optimo 8fr guiding catheter and a phenom microcatheter.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Manufacturer ref # (b)(4).Information regarding patient weight, height, medical history, race, and ethnicity was not reported.Section h4: the device manufacture date is is not available at the time of reporting.Missing information from this report is identified as blank; this information was not provided in the reported event or available at the time of report submission.The company is seeking this information through the event investigation.This report is being submitted pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803 (and/or part 4, as applicable).This report may be based on information which has not been investigated or verified prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by cerenovus, or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the product, cerenovus, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial report, a follow-up report will be filed as appropriate.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Manufacturer ref# (b)(4).Updated sections on this medwatch: b4, g3, g6, h2, h4, h6 and h11.Complaint conclusion: a healthcare professional reported that this was a mechanical thrombectomy of the middle cerebral artery with segment m2 occlusion was initiated.Carotid artery stenting of the common carotid artery was also performed concomitantly.When the aspiration catheter was inserted, it was unable to pass beyond the protage stent deployed in the common carotid artery.Then, an embotrap iii 5 mm x 37 mm (et309537, 24f016av) was delivered to the m2 occlusion site and deployed.After retrieving the thrombus and withdrawing it with the embotrap iii, the embotrap iii stent became caught on the protage in the common carotid artery and could not be removed.A 6fr inner catheter was inserted to retrieve the embotrap iii stent.The embotrap iii was pulled from the patient¿s body, and the procedure was successfully completed.There was no negative impact to the patient.A continuous flush was unknown.Other concomitant devices were optimo 8fr guiding catheter and a phenom microcatheter.Additional event information received on 12-aug-2025 indicated that there was no damage to the device due to the entanglement.There was no evidence of vessel damage or thromboembolism.The device was not used for additional passes after the entanglement.Since no device has been received for analysis, no product investigation can be performed, and the reported failure could not be evaluated.A device history review (dhr) associated with this lot 24f016av presented no issues during the manufacturing or inspection process that can be related to the reported complaint.With the information available and without the product available for analysis, the reported customer complaint could not be confirmed.Based on the device history record review, there is no indication that the event is related to the device manufacturing process.The exact cause of the event could not be determined; however, there are circumstances of the procedure that may have contributed to the reported failure.As part of the post market surveillance program, information from this complaint is trended to identify statistical signals for consideration of further correction action.Since there was no evidence to suggest the event was related to a manufacturing or design issue, no corrective actions will be taken at this time.A supplemental report will be submitted if new facts arise which materially alter information submitted in a previous mdr report.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|