|
(b)(4).During processing of this complaint, attempts were made to obtain complete event, patient and device information.The device was returned for analysis.The hypotube was separated proximal to the guide wire exit notch.The proximal portion, including the hub were not returned.The reported material deformation (bent and flared stent) was confirmed.The reported failure to advance the device was unable to be replicated in a testing environment as it was based on operational circumstances.A review of the lot history record identified no manufacturing nonconformities issued to the reported lot that would have contributed to this event.Review of the complaint history did not indicate a lot specific quality issue.The investigation determined the reported difficulties appear to be related to circumstances of the procedure.The account was contacted in regards to the shaft separation; however, they were unaware of any shaft separation.It is possible the shaft separation took place after the procedure.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling.
|
|
It was reported that the procedure was performed to treat a heavily calcified and heavily tortuous lesion in the left circumflex coronary artery.The vessel was predilated and the 3.5x12 mm xience alpine stent was inserted, but met a lot of resistance with the calcified anatomy.It was unable to advance further and the stent delivery system (sds) was retracted from the anatomy.There was no resistance removing the sds from the anatomy.After the sds was removed, longitudinal stent damage was noted; the stent was also flared and prolapsed.A non-abbott stent was used to complete the procedure.There were no adverse patient effects and no clinically significant delay in the procedure.This is being filed for the proximal shaft separation found during device investigation on the returned device.Follow-up with the customer indicated the customer was not aware of the shaft separation.No additional information was provided.
|