|
Analysis/device evaluation: upon receipt, visual examination was performed over the entire length of the catheter revealing no evidence of damage to the catheter.Microscopic visual inspection noted a longitudinal rupture extending from the proximal end of the balloon to the middle of the balloon.Deep scratches perpendicular to the longitudinal rupture were noted, possibly due to calcification at the target lesion.A lot history review revealed this is the only complaint associated with this lot.A device history record (dhr) review was performed and noted the device was manufactured to specification prior to being released for distribution.Conclusion: returned product analysis confirmed the material rupture to be longitudinal in nature at the proximal end, extending to the middle of the balloon.Additional scratches perpendicular to the longitudinal rupture were present.There was nothing found to indicate there was a manufacturing related cause for this event.A definitive root cause for the rupture could not be determined.It is unknown if procedural issues contributed to the reported event.The information provided by bard represents all of the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant / reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bard.Actual device evaluated.
|
|
It was reported a lutonix percutaneous transluminal drug coated balloon (dcb) dilatation catheter allegedly ruptured during treatment of a calcified, non-tortuous right popliteal artery.The health care professional (hcp) reportedly advanced the lutonix dcb to the target lesion within the popliteal artery and incrementally inflated the balloon to 7 atmospheres, at which point the balloon allegedly ruptured.The lutonix dcb was removed completely without issues and another lutonix dcb was used to complete the procedure.The lutonix dcb was returned for further evaluation.No adverse patient effects were reported.
|