| Model Number |
1001780 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Difficult to Remove (1528); Material Separation (1562); Stretched (1601)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Device Embedded In Tissue or Plaque (3165)
|
| Date of Event |
12/04/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Manufacturer's investigation is still pending at this time.Results and conclusions will be provided in the final report.The additional device referenced in b5 and d10 is captured under a separate medwatch number.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that the procedure was to treat the first obtuse marginal (om1) and left anterior descending (lad) coronary arteries with 85-95% stenosis and calcification.Left radial access was gained and a 6fr 4.5 guide catheter was advanced and seated coaxially in the ostium of the left main (lm).The blance middleweight (bmw) guide wire was inserted and advanced without difficulty to the distal om1.A 2.5x15 mm trek balloon was used for pre-dilatation and the dragonfly opstar imaging catheter was advanced.One run was successfully imaged.Upon removal of the dragonfly, there was a lot of resistance.The guide wire and dragonfly had to be removed together as a unit.Once outside the anatomy, the wire was found to be frayed and coiled like a ribbon.The anatomy was imaged again with fluoro and a piece of wire was seen in the vessel.A snare was unsuccessful.A 2.75x28 mm xience skypoint stent delivery system (sds) was attempted to be advanced to embed the wire piece into the vessel wall; however, it could not cross.A 2.5 mm trek balloon was ultimately used to tack the wire piece to the vessel wall and a non-abbott stent was implanted.A final oct run was performed with a new dragonfly opstar.Everything looked good at this point.The physician then decided to switch to the lad and finish the procedure.This was successful using two more runs of oct to image the lad.The 2.75 x 28 xience skypoint sds was used on this vessel and crossed with ease.The patient remained stable throughout the procedure.The patient was discharged the next day with no issues.No additional information was provided.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
A visual inspection, functional testing, and dimensional analysis was performed on the returned device.The stretch and material separation were confirmed.The difficult to remove is related to case conditions and cannot be replicated in a lab environment.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, a definitive cause for the reported issue could not be determined.The subsequent treatment is related to the circumstances of the procedure.It is possible the wire became damaged during insertion, or during exchange of the balloon and or dragonfly catheters.In the exchange the wire coils may have stacked causing the dragonfly and wire to stick together which causing a separation at the tip or core leading and the stretched coil during removal.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|