|
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 could not be determined; however, the subsequent unexpected medical intervention (additional therapy / non-surgical treatment) appears to be related to the operational context of the procedure.Factors that can contribute to difficult to advance/remove include, but are not limited to, kinks, bends, procedural technique, insufficient support, patient anatomical morphology, patient disease state, or interactions with accessory devices.In this case, it is possible the device may have interacted with the heavily calcified, moderately tortuous lesion during advancement, causing the reported difficult to advance.Further interaction with the challenging anatomy during retraction of the device, as resistance was noted, may have contributed to the reported difficult to remove; however, without the device to examine, this cannot 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.
|
|
It was reported that the procedure was to treat a de novo, heavily calcified, moderately tortuous right coronary artery lesion.A 2.25x28 mm xience skypoint stent delivery system (sds) was difficult to deliver to the target lesion and when pulling back before deployment, resistance was noted.A snare was used to prevent the stent from dislodging from the sds during removal.An additional non-abbott stent was used to complete the procedure.No additional information was provided.
|