|
W. L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. GORE® VIABAHN® ENDOPROSTHESIS WITH HEPARIN BIOACTIVE SURFACE; SYSTEM, ENDOVASCULAR GRAFT, ARTERIOVENOUS (AV) DIALYSIS ACCESS CIRCUIT STENOSIS
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Catalog Number |
VBHR081501A |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Activation Failure (3270)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
01/13/2026
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The following was reported to gore: on (b)(6) 2026, the physician performed a declot in the patient's left brachial vein.It was reported there were no pre-existing devices in the area of treatment.A cut down was performed and thrombectomy with a fogarty balloon was done.Then a percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (pta) was performed using an 8 x 40 conquest balloon.It was reported there was residual stenosis.Prior to implant of a device, the entire area was pre-dilated with an 8 mm balloon and no resistance was felt while delivering the gore® viabahn® endoprosthesis with heparin bioactive surface (viabahn® device).For the remaining stenosis, an 8mm x 15cm viabahn® device was to be implanted.As there was a cut-down, it was reported a sheath was not used.The viabahn® device was advanced over an.035 stiff angled glide wire.When the deployment line was pulled, a short segment of the line unraveled, but got stuck and further deployment was not possible.Under x-ray, it was confirmed the deployment line was not hung up on anything and there was no device expansion.The constrained viabahn® device was removed.A new viabahn® device was delivered over the same.035 stiff angled glide and the viabahn® device deployed with no issues.The patient did not experience any adverse consequences.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Cbas® heparin surface incorporates carmeda heparin manufactured from heparin sodium api, which is covalently bound to the device surface and is essentially non-eluting.H6 - code c19: review of device manufacturing record history confirmed device met pre-release specifications.H6 - code b01: specimen was returned.Results pending completion of investigation.W.L.Gore & associates, inc.(gore) is submitting this report to comply with 21 c.F.R.Part 803, the medical device reporting regulation.This report is based upon information obtained by gore, which the company may not have been able to fully investigate or verify prior to the date the report was required by the fda.Blank fields present on this report include required fields and fields determined to be not applicable.Blank required fields indicate that the information was not provided, was deemed unavailable or was not applicable.This report does not constitute an admission or a conclusion by fda, gore, or its associates that the device, gore or its associates caused or contributed to the event described in the report.In particular, this report does not constitute a legal admission by anyone that the product described in this report has any defects or has malfunctioned, as defined from a legal standpoint.These words are included in the report and are fixed items for selection created by the fda, to categorize the type of event solely for the purpose of reporting pursuant to part 803.This statement should be included with any information or report disclosed to the public under the freedom of information act.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The engineering evaluation report details observations made directly on the returned device in addition to device photos captured during evaluation.The returned device evaluation indicates knob detached from the hub, as indicated with loose deployment line and exiting additional line from the transition area of the catheter.Observed also was a partially deployed outer zipper.The reported failure mode of deployment line stuck is not consistent with the findings as deployment could be continued from the knob.Engineering evaluation of the device could not confirm the reported failure to deploy.Replication of this failure mode is not always possible because of differences between conditions seen in vivo (i.E., patient anatomy, procedural conditions) and those seen in the laboratory.The root cause of the reported failure mode could not be established within the engineering evaluation.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|