|
It was reported that the procedure was to treat the left anterior descending artery and the ramus interventricularis anterior (riva) artery.Two unspecified trek balloon dilatation catheters (bdc) and a nc trek neo bdc were noted to ruptured during the procedure.Then a 3.0x15mm nc trek neo bdc ruptured and became stuck in the riva.When attempting to remove the tip of the balloon separated, remaining in the vessel.A non-abbott stent was used to embed the separated portion.A non-abbott device was used to successfully complete the procedure.It was noted that there was an unspecified previously implanted stent that was under expanded, had a sharp edge that caused the bdc to rupture.There was no adverse patient sequela and no clinically significant delay in the procedure.No additional information was provided.
|
|
Visual inspection was performed on the returned device.The reported separation was confirmed.The reported balloon rupture could not be confirmed due to the condition of the returned device.The reported difficulty removing the device could not be replicated in a testing environment as it is based on operational context.Production record and corrective and preventative actions (capa) reviews were performed and revealed no indication of a product quality issue.Additionally, a review of the complaint history identified no other similar complaints from this lot.It was reported that the device was not soaked prior to use.It should be noted that the coronary dilatation catheters (cdc), nc trek neo, instruction for use (ifu) states: submerge the balloon in sterile heparinized normal saline during balloon preparation, to activate the coating.In this case, it is unlikely that the ifu violation caused or contributed to the reported complaint.Based on the reported information and the observations from the returned analysis, the investigation determined that the reported balloon rupture, difficulty to remove, separation, unexpected medical intervention and device embedded in tissue 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.It was reported by the account that there was an unspecified previously implanted stent that was under expanded and had a sharp edge.In this case, it is likely that the balloon interacted with the previously implanted stent resulting in the reported balloon rupture during inflation.In addition, it is likely that the ruptured balloon material became stuck on the patient¿s anatomy, resulting in the reported difficulty removing the device and subsequently the balloon/tip ultimately separated.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|