|
Analysis: the sample was not returned by the user facility.No further evaluation of the device could be performed.Lot history review and the dhr review could not be conducted because the corporate lot number was not provided by the user facility, though attempts were made by field assurance personnel to obtain the lot number.Conclusion: the actual samples were not received for evaluation.The lot number was not made available, so no dhr review could be conducted.Based on the instructions for use (ifu), the occurrence of re-occlusion 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 during the index procedure, a lutonix percutaneous transluminal drug coated balloon (dcb) dilatation catheter was used to treat the target lesion located in the right mid superficial femoral artery (sfa).Approximately 12 months after the index procedure, the patient¿s right mid sfa vasculature was reportedly reoccluded.A revascularization was performed and the hcp deemed it was successful.The investigator assessed that the event was not related to the study device or procedure.The sample was discarded by the user facility and is not available for evaluation.No adverse patient effects were reported.
|