|
Analysis: the sample was not returned to the user facility; therefore, evaluation of the actual sample is unable to be performed.A lot history review revealed no additional reocclusion complaints was associated with this lot.A review of the device history record (dhr) shows the lot was manufactured to specification.Conclusion: the actual sample was not received for evaluation.The dhr found nothing to indicate a manufacturing related cause for this event.The investigator assessed the event was not related to the study device.Based on the instructions for use (ifu), the occurrence of a reocclusion is an inherent risk of any pta procedure, and has been reported in clinical trials of drug coated balloons.If additional information becomes known to the manufacturer, a supplemental report will be provided will all relevant information.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.
|
|
It was reported that during an index procedure, the physician used one lutonix percutaneous transluminal drug coated balloon (dcb) dilatation catheter to treat the target lesion located in the proximal superficial femoral artery (sfa) of the left leg.Approximately 3 months later, the hcp treated the patient with thrombectomy and a pta balloon.Next, the hcp placed a stent within the original target lesion resulting in residual stenosis of 20%.No further adverse patient effects were reported.
|