|
It was reported that during a percutaneous coronary intervention (pci) a diamondback 360 precision coronary orbital atherectomy device (oad) and viperwire advance coronary guide wire with flex tip were being used to treat heavily calcified, severely tortuous, 90% stenosed lesion in proximal circumflex artery (cfx).The lesion was primarily wired with the viperwire.A 6fr guide extension catheter was in use during the procedure.Three low-speed treatments with the oad were performed.It was noticed the patient felt generally unwell, diaphoretic, and nauseous.Contrast dye was injected for post-run check and a perforation was observed in the proximal cfx near the area treated.The oad crown did not jump.The oad was removed.A non-abbott semi-compliant balloon was dilated in the perforated area in an attempt to resolve the perforation but was unsuccessful.Two non-abbott covered stents were placed to cover the perforation.Pericardiocentesis was also performed to drain fluid.The patient decompensated.Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (cpr) was initiated.Toward the end of the cpr the patient was intubated.A second perforation was noted in the lad.Upon return of spontaneous circulation (rosc) another stent was placed in the lad to resolve the perforation.As the lad was not treated with the oad, the physician believed cpr caused the lad perforation.Both the cfx and lad perforations have been resolved at this point.An intra-aortic balloon pump (iabp) was inserted in the patient for circulatory support.The patient was transferred to intensive care unit (icu) to remain intubated while recovering for a while.The patient expired in the icu on (b)(6) 2025.The physician believed the oad caused the perforation due to lesion tortuosity.In the opinion of the physician the primary cause of death was perforation of the proximal cfx and the secondary cause was coronary artery disease (cad).
|
|
It was reported that during a percutaneous coronary intervention (pci) a diamondback 360 precision coronary orbital atherectomy device (oad) and viperwire advance coronary guide wire with flex tip were being used to treat heavily calcified, severely tortuous, 90% stenosed lesion in proximal circumflex artery (cfx).The lesion was primarily wired with the viperwire.A 6fr guide extension catheter was in use during the procedure.Three low-speed treatments with the oad were performed.It was noticed the patient felt generally unwell, diaphoretic, and nauseous.Contrast dye was injected for post-run check and a perforation was observed in the proximal cfx near the area treated.The oad crown did not jump.The oad was removed.A non-abbott semi-compliant balloon was dilated in the perforated area in an attempt to resolve the perforation but was unsuccessful.Two non-abbott covered stents were placed to cover the perforation.Pericardiocentesis was also performed to drain fluid.The patient decompensated.Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (cpr) was initiated.Toward the end of the cpr the patient was intubated.A second perforation was noted in the lad.Upon return of spontaneous circulation (rosc) another stent was placed in the lad to resolve the perforation.As the lad was not treated with the oad, the physician believed cpr caused the lad perforation.Both the cfx and lad perforations have been resolved at this point.An intra-aortic balloon pump (iabp) was inserted in the patient for circulatory support.The patient was transferred to intensive care unit (icu) to remain intubated while recovering for a while.The patient expired in the icu on (b)(6) 2025.The physician believed the oad caused the perforation due to lesion tortuosity.In the opinion of the physician the primary cause of death was perforation of the proximal cfx and the secondary cause was coronary artery disease (cad).
|
|
The device was not returned for analysis.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 information received, the investigation determined that the reported patient effects of perforation of vessels, low blood pressure, nausea, diaphoresis, cardiac arrest, hospitalization, unexpected medical intervention and death appear to be related to operational context.In this case it is possible that the reported patient effects of perforation of vessels, low blood pressure, nausea, diaphoresis, cardiac arrest, hospitalization, unexpected medical intervention and death are a result of the patient¿s disease severity and/or use techniques employed; however, since the device was not returned this could not be confirmed.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: g3, g6, h2, h6 (codes 4755, 4118, 3233, and 11 no longer apply).
|