|
Analysis: the sample was not returned to the user facility; therefore, device evaluations are unable to be performed.A lot history review revealed 2 additional reocclusion complaints 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 or procedure.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 through a clinical registry that a patient experienced reocclusion approximately 26 months after the index procedure.The patient's left popliteal artery was reportedly recanalized due to an acute embolism of the target lesion.The report states the patient received three previous lysis therapy procedures.The health care professional (hcp) noted most recent therapy was unsuccessful.The revascularization included thrombolytics, a thrombectomy, and redilation of the target lesion with normal percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (pta).The investigator assessed the event was not related to the study device or procedure.The sample was discarded by the user facility and not available for further evaluation.No adverse patient effects were reported.
|