|
(b)(4).During processing of this complaint, attempts were made to obtain complete event, patient and device information.The device was not returned for analysis.A review of the lot history record revealed no manufacturing nonconformities that would have contributed to this complaint.Additionally, a review of the complaint history of the reported lot revealed no other similar incidents.Based on the information reviewed, there is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.The investigation determined that the reported balloon rupture appears to be related to circumstances of the procedure.The 6.0 x 80 mm armada 18 and 5.5 x 100 mm armada 18 referenced are being filed under separate medwatch reports.
|
|
It was reported the procedure was to treat a heavily calcified lesion in the superficial femoral artery (sfa).The 6.0 x 80 mm armada 18 was advanced to the target lesion, but ruptured at 8 atmosphere (atm) during the first inflation.A 5.5 x 100 mm armada 18 was advanced to the target lesion but ruptured at 8 atm during the first inflation as well.A 4.0 x 12 mm armada 14 was advanced to the target lesion; however, a rupture occurred at unknown pressure during the first inflation.Another new armada 14 was used to complete the procedure successfully.There was no adverse patient effect and no clinically significant delay in the procedure.No additional information was provided.
|