|
(b)(4).During processing of this complaint, attempts were made to obtain complete event, patient and device information.(b)(4).The device was not returned for analysis.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 supera instructions for use (ifu) states to measure the diameter of the reference vessel proximal and distal to the lesion and select a stent corresponding to the reference vessel diameter of the target lesion.Additionally, the ifu states, should unusual resistance be felt at any time during stent system advancement or stent deployment the entire system should be removed together with the introducer sheath or guiding catheter as a single unit.In this case, selecting a larger diameter stent and continuing to apply force during the attempt to advance likely contributed to the reported difficulties.The investigation determined that the reported difficulties likely occurred due to the use of a 5.0mm stent in a vessel diameter of 3.0mm.It is likely that the supera was unable to cross the narrowed vessel and when force was applied, the tip became wedged within the lesion calcification.Additionally, when the delivery system was being removed with the tip entrapped, it is likely that the inner lumen attached to the tip became stretched resulting in the reported appearance of the tip being moved and causing the stent to pull out from the distal sheath and partially expand.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|