|
The complaint catheter was returned for evaluation.There is a longitudinal tear in the balloon.The balloon was examined at 10x magnification, but nothing was seen that could have caused the balloon tear.A review of the device history record was performed and no issues were noted.There are no other complaints associated with this lot number of devices.A review was also performed on the balloon tubing used to manufacture the balloons used on this device.No other complaints were associated with the tubing used to manufacture the balloons.A comparative catheter was pulled and tested.The device was the same catalog number and lot number as the complaint device.The balloon was immersed in a body temperature water bath and inflated until it failed.The comparative catheter balloon did not burst until 4.5 atm, which is more than double the labeled rated burst pressure of 2 atm.It is unknown if an inflation device with pressure gauge was used, and what pressure the balloon was taken to.The procedure is also unknown, however, for a patient to aspirate contrast, the procedure had to involve the respiratory system.This device is only indicated for use in the cardiovascular system - pulmonary valvuloplasty.The root cause is being attributed to the off label use of the device.The comparative catheter did not burst until it was taken to more than double it's labeled burst pressure.This comparative catheter was from the same lot as the complaint catheter.
|