(b)(4).The device was not returned for investigation.The balloon was undergone burst, compliance, and fatigue verification testing.There is no evidence to suggest that the device wa snot manufactured to specs.The device is supplied with an ifu which is the proper indications, warnings, precautions, contraindications, and proper usage techniques including inflation/deflation and device removal methods.The related burst pressure (rbp) is listed on the ifu and the labeling.For this specific rpn, the nominal pressure is 5 atm/bar and the rbp is 8 atm/bar.Depending on the pt's anatomy, anatomy could have played a role in the separation that occurred after rupture, but his cannot be confirmed.Also, if the device attempted to be withdrawn through a sheath or introducer following rupture, the sheath or introducer could have caused difficult removal and aided in the separation, but this cannot be confirmed.Without return of the complaint device and without knowing more info (pt anatomy, inflation pressure, if a sheath was used and how the device was removed), a definite root cause cannot be determined.We have notified appropriate internal personnel and will continue to monitor for similar complaints.
|
During a percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of subclavian, the physician inflated the device twice with no incident.On the third inflation, there was a circumferential rupture.All fragments were able to be removed.There was no harm to the pt and no add'l procedures or intervention was required.
|