| Model Number |
9004 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Reocclusion (1985)
|
| Date of Event |
03/22/2016
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Analysis: the sample was not returned from the user facility; therefore, a device evaluation is unable to be performed.A lot history review revealed there are no similar complaint 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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
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 1 month 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.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The weight and weight units were updated to "165 and lbs".Eval code & desc - results code of "213" was added.The other relevant history was changed from "patient weight is unavailable" to "unknown".Mdr contact person and email address was changed from "(b)(6)" to "(b)(6)".The mdr contact person phone number was changed from "(b)(6)" to "(b)(6)".Eval code & desc - method codes were changed from "3263, 3317" to "4115, 3331, 4110".Eval code & desc - conclusion codes were changed from "92" to "4310".Analysis: the sample was not returned from the user facility; therefore, a device evaluation is unable to be performed.A lot history review revealed there are no similar complaint 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 returned 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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
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 1 month 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.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|