|
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 provided, a definitive cause for the reported difficulties and reported patient effects in relationship to the product, if any, cannot be determined; however, the subsequent hospitalization, surgical intervention and foreign body in patient appear to be related to the operational context of the procedure.Factors that could contribute to failure to advance include, but are not limited to, patient anatomical morphology, patient disease state, pre-dilatation strategy, device placement technique, interaction with previously placed stents or accessory devices.Stent dislodgement may be attributed to several factors including, but not limited to, positive pressure during preparation, forced sheath removal, handling of the stent during preparation, interaction with patent anatomy, previously implanted stents or accessory devices.In this case, it is possible the device may have interacted with previously implanted stents during advancement, causing the reported failure to advance.Further interaction with the previously implanted stents during retraction of the device, as resistance was noted, may have contributed to the reported stent dislodgement; however, this cannot be confirmed.The patient was sent to bypass, and the stent remains in the anatomy.The reported patient effect of angina is listed in the xience skypoint, everolimus eluting coronary stent system (eecss), electronic instructions for use as a known patient effect of coronary stenting procedures.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.
|