|
Visual inspection was performed on the returned device.The reported separation was confirmed.The reported difficulty advancing and removing the device from the guiding catheter could not be replicated 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 review of the complaint history identified no other similar complaints from this lot.Based on the reported information and the observations from the returned analysis, a definitive cause for the reported difficulty advancing and removing the device from the guiding catheter could not be determined; however, the reported separation appears to be related to circumstances of the procedure.Possible factors which may contribute to resistance with the guiding catheter during advancement include, but are not limited to, manufacturing, damage to the guiding catheter, or procedural technique (devices not properly supported or coaxially aligned).Possible factors that can contribute to difficult to remove/resistance with the guiding catheter post-inflation include, but are not limited to, loose balloon folds, guiding catheter lumen obstructions, kinks, bends or procedural technique.In this case, a conclusive cause for the reported difficulty advancing or removing the device from the guiding catheter could not be determined.Furthermore, it is likely that the bdc was inadvertently mishandled during advancement and /or removal, as resistance was encountered, resulting in the reported separation.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|
|
Subsequent to the initial report being filed, it was reported that the bdc became stuck in the gc while attempted to remove an unspecified stent.Therefore, the gc, guide wire, and stent were removed as single unit with the separated portion of the bdc.No additional information was provided.
|