|
Analysis: the samples were not returned from the user facility; therefore, device evaluations are unable to be performed.A lot history review revealed 2 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 samples were not received for evaluation.The dhr found nothing to indicate a manufacturing related cause for this event.Allegedly, diagnostic testing of the patient confirmed reocclusion after 1 month.Reportedly, the patient experienced worsening leg pain 20 months after the diagnostic testing.The investigator assessed that the reocclusion event noted on (b)(6) 2017 was possibly 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 with 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, two lutonix percutaneous transluminal drug coated balloon (dcb) dilatation catheters were used to treat the target lesion located in the left mid superficial femoral artery (sfa) and popliteal artery.Approximately 1 month after the index procedure, the patient had a duplex ultrasound which revealed the patient¿s right left mid sfa and popliteal vasculature containing the target lesion was reportedly reoccluded.The hcp elected a conservative management plan for the patient.On (b)(6) 2017, the patient presented to the office with bilateral claudication in both calves.At that time, the hcp continued conservative management of the patient's symptoms.The patient called the nurse line on (b)(6) 2017, due to worsening leg pain.Approximately 20 months after the initial reocclusion of the patient's treated vasculature, a revascularization was performed.The investigator assessed that the reocclusion event noted on (b)(6) 2017 was possibly 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.This is one of two products involved with the reported event and the associated manufacturer¿s report number is 3006513822-2017-00280.
|