|
Analysis: the sample was not returned from the user facility; therefore, a device evaluation is unable to be performed.A lot history review revealed 3 additional reocclusion complaints were associated with this lot.A review of the device history record (dhr) indicates 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 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 during the index procedure, a lutonix percutaneous transluminal drug coated balloon (dcb) dilatation catheter was used to treat the target lesion located in the left superficial femoral artery (sfa).Approximately 11 months after the index procedure, the patient¿s left 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.
|
|
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 left popliteal artery.Approximately 5 months after the index procedure, the patient¿s left popliteal 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.
|
|
Additional information: the patient's weight was added with measurement units, (b)(6).The other relevant history had the patient's medical history added "past medical history includes: hypertension, dyslipidemia, former smoker, coronary artery disease (cad), myocardial infarction in 1999, valvular heart disease, aortic valve regurgitation in 2012, mitral valve regurgitation in 2012, tricuspid valve regurgitation in 2012, left ventricular dysfunction, peripheral artery disease (pad) in 2015, stage 3 chronic kidney disease (ckd), rutherford class unknown in left leg." also, the following statement "patient weight is unavailable" was taken out because this information was obtained.Corrected data: the event description was changed from " 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 left superficial femoral artery (sfa).Approximately 11 months after the index procedure, the patient¿s left 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" to "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 left popliteal artery.Approximately 5 months after the index procedure, the patient¿s left popliteal 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." analysis: the sample was not returned from the user facility; therefore, a device evaluation is unable to be performed.A lot history review revealed 3 additional reocclusion complaints were associated with this lot.A review of the device history record (dhr) indicates 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 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.
|