Manufacturing site could not be determined because the product lot number information was not available.Attempt was made to gather thorough event information during complaint processing; the physician commented that it could possibly be an allergic reaction to coating agents; however, there was no evidence to support that.Device analysis could not be conducted as the guide wire was not returned.No other similar product experience report was received.Investigation of the production record could not be performed as lot information was unavailable.Although lot history review could not be conducted, since all the shipped products were inspected in the production process for meeting the product specifications and release criteria, there was no indication of product deficiency.As the subject device passed all manufacturing inspections, it was concluded that there was no device defect.However, a possibility could not be completely ruled out that the subject device might cause or contribute to the reported patient harm.Instructions for use (ifu) states "allergic reaction" as one of possible adverse effects.
|