|
(b)(4).During processing of this complaint, attempts were made to obtain complete event, patient and device information.(b)(4).Evaluation summary: visual and functional inspection was performed on the returned device.The reported balloon rupture was confirmed.It is likely that the balloon rupture is the result of interaction with calcification during inflation.A review of the lot history record revealed no manufacturing nonconformities that would have contributed to this complaint.Additionally, a review of the complaint history of the reported lot revealed no other incidents.It should be noted that the armada 14 instruction for use (ifu) provides instructions for preparing the pta catheter including purging the device of air prior to inserting into the patient.In this case, it does not appear that preparing the device in the anatomy contributed to the reported balloon rupture.Based on the information provided, the reported difficulties appear to be due to operational circumstances of the procedure.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|
|
It was reported that the procedure was to treat a de novo lesion in the mildly tortuous, mildly calcified, distal, anterior tibial artery.A 2.0 x 80 mm armada 14 percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (pta) catheter was selected for the procedure.Air aspiration was not performed prior to use.The pta catheter was advanced to the lesion with no resistance felt and on the first inflation to 7 atmospheres the balloon ruptured.The pta catheter was removed from the anatomy and replaced with a new 2.0 x 80 mm armada 14 pta catheter to successfully complete the procedure.There were no adverse patient effects and no clinically significant delay in the procedure.No additional information was provided.
|