|
Visual inspection was performed on the returned device.The reported separation was confirmed; however, the reported balloon rupture could not be replicated in a testing environment due to the condition of the returned device.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 balloon rupture, separation, unexpected medical intervention and device embedded in tissue or plaque appear to be related to circumstances of the procedure.There was no leak noted during preparation, which suggests a product quality issue did not contribute to the reported difficulties.In this case, it is likely that the balloon interacted with the heavily calcified anatomy resulting in the reported balloon rupture.The balloon rupture likely did not allow the balloon to refold properly resulting in the material interacting with the patient anatomy and/or accessory device and subsequently lead to the reported separation during manipulation and/or removal.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|