|
The patient and device codes were coded by the manufacturer.(b)(4).During processing of this complaint, attempts were made to obtain complete event, patient and device information.(b)(4).The analysis was performed by(b)(4).Investigation of the device could not be conducted as the grand slam guide wire was not returned.Based on the provided information, it was presumed that lubricity between the guide wire and the balloon catheter was temporarily affected by vessel tortuosity or such substance as blood or contrast media that went into the balloon catheter lumen.Lot history review revealed no anomaly relating to the reported event and no other similar product experience report was received.The investigation determined the reported difficulties appear to be related to circumstances of the procedure.The additional grandslam guide wire referenced and filed under a separate medwatch report number.
|
|
It was reported the procedure was performed to treat a lesion in the popliteal vessel with no calcification or tortuosity.The first grandslam guide wire was advanced through an un-specified balloon dilatation catheter (bdc); however, resistance was noted.The guide wire was retracted, but resistance was met with the bdc; therefore, the guide wire and bdc were removed together.Outside the anatomy, the devices were separated successfully.A new grandslam guide wire was used with the same bdc; however, the same issue occurred.The devices were removed and a new grandslam guide wire was used with the same bdc successfully.There were no adverse patient effects and no clinically significant delay in the procedure.No additional information was provided.
|