| 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 |
01/24/2018
|
|
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 is no similar reocclusion complaints 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 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.
|
| |
|
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 juxta anastomotic region in the cephalic vein of the left forearm av fistula.Approximately 4 months after the index procedure, the patient¿s vessel containing the target lesion was reportedly reoccluded.A revascularization was attempted, but the guidewire would not pass.The hcp proceeded to abandon the access site.The hcp created a new av fistula that incorporated the target lesion.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
|
|
Corrected data: product classification code has been changed from "prc" to "onu." the pma/510(k)# has been changed from "p170003" to "p130024." the sample was not returned from the user facility; therefore, a device evaluation is unable to be performed.A lot history review revealed there is no similar reocclusion complaints 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 with 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 juxta anastomotic region in the cephalic vein of the left forearm av fistula.Approximately 4 months after the index procedure, the patient¿s vessel containing the target lesion was reportedly reoccluded.A revascularization was attempted, but the guidewire would not pass.The hcp proceeded to abandon the access site.The hcp created a new av fistula that incorporated the target lesion.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
|