|
It was reported that during an av fistula angioplasty procedure using an advance 35 lp low profile balloon catheter, the balloon fragmented in the right cephalic vein during the last inflation.It was reported that the inflation pressure was above the nominal pressure rate.Contrast used was a 50/50 mix ultravist 370.There was no angulation or vessel calcification noted.The balloon was noted to have burst circumferentially.The largest fragment was retrieved however, a smaller piece that included the radiopac segment migrated into the collateral vein of the right arm but did not pose a hemodynamic problem.An attempt was made to retrieve the piece without success.It was reported that the patient is asymptomatic and the fistula (dialysis) is working without any complication.
|
|
A review of the complaint history, device history record, documentation, instructions for use (ifu), specifications, and quality control was conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was not returned, therefore no physical examinations could be performed; however, a document-based investigation was performed.There is no evidence to suggest the product was not made to specifications.Review of the device history record shows no nonconforming events that would contribute to this failure mode.There were no other reported complaints for this lot number.Numerous design verification and validation activities have been performed to ensure that this device meets design requirements, and that the device meets the needs of the user.Each device is shipped with instructions for use (ifu) listing the indications for use, contraindications, warnings and precautions, and the correct deployment procedure.Without visual, dimensional, and/or functional testing of the product, we are unable to determine if this is a manufacturing issue.Based upon the information provided and the characteristics displayed, it is plausible to suggest that this incident was technique related or human anatomy related.However, based on the information provided, no product returned, and the results of our investigation; a definitive root cause could not be determined.Per the quality engineering risk assessment, no further action is warranted.Monitoring will continue to be performed for similar complaints.
|