The complaint devices were unavailable for analysis and no sterile lot numbers were reported thus no fal or dhr could be performed.Arterial dissection, thromboembolic occlusion of a previously unaffected artery resulting, vasospasm, and device ineffective resulting in death are all known potential adverse events associated with eh use of the revive se device and are listed in the ifu as such.There is no evidence of manufacturing issues related to these events and all products undergo a 100% inspection prior to being released for sale to the customers.Review of the available information suggests that parent vessel anatomy, aneurysm characteristics, intraprocedural issues and medication regimen factors may have contributed to these reported events.
|
The literature article "mechanical thrombectomy with stent retrievers in acute basilar artery occlusion" by m.Mohlenbruch, s.Stampfl, l.Behrens, c.Herweh, s.Rohde, m.Bendszus, c.Hametner, s.Nagel, p.A.Ringleb, and m.Pham, published in american journal of neuroradiology, 35:959-64, may 2014, reported that after use of the revive se device patients suffered arterial dissection, thromboembolic occlusion of a previously unaffected artery resulting, vasospasm, and device ineffective resulting in death.There was no patient specific information reported, i.E.Age or sex, the only identifying information provided was the study number assigned to each patient.Between december 2009 and may 2012, endovascular therapy was performed on 31 patients for basilar artery occlusion (bao).Of these, 7 patients were excluded because of endovascular treatment technique with either exclusive local intra-arterial thrombolysis or primary stent placement for high-grade basilar artery or distal vertebral artery stenosis.Twenty-four patients (17 male, 7 female; median age, 70; range, 33-83 years) underwent mt.Nine patients were treated with a competitor's device, 12 patients with revive se, and 2 patients with both devices.The median number of passes for the competitor's device or revive se was 2 (range, 1-10).In 1 of the 2 patients in which both devices (the competitor's device after revive se) were used, successful recanalization was achieved only after the use of a slightly oversized competitor's device (6 mm in diameter) because the diameter of the basilar artery was very large, measuring nearly 5 mm.In the other patient, the basilar artery remained occluded despite 5 attempts with revive se, another 5 attempts with the competitor's device, and even after eventual percutaneous transluminal angioplasty.Patient #11 experienced vasospasm after the device was used.This was treated with anti-spasmolytic medications successfully.Patient #12 suffered thromboembolic occlusion of a previously unaffected artery resulting in death.Patient #13 suffered arterial dissection of the vertebral artery in segment 2, treated successfully with permanent stent implantation.Patient #15 suffered arterial dissection of the vertebral artery in segment 1, treated successfully with permanent stent implantation.Patient #17 suffered thromboembolic occlusion of a previously unaffected artery successfully treated with thrombolytic medications.For patient #18 the device was ineffective and arterial dissection was noted.Both were treated successfully.Patient #22 suffered vasospasm that was successfully treated with anti-spasmolytic medications.For patient #23 both the revive and the competitor's device were ineffective and the patient subsequently died.No sterile lot numbers were reported and none of the devices are available for analysis.
|