(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 identified no indication of a lot specific product issue.It should be noted that the armada 35 instruction for use states: the device is intended for dilatation of lesions in the renal, iliac, femoral, popliteal, tibial, and peroneal arteries and for the treatment of obstructive lesions of native or synthetic arteriovenous dialysis fistulae.It could not be determined if the off-label use contributed to the balloon rupture.The investigation determined that the reported balloon rupture was likely due to case circumstances, as it is likely that the rupture occurred due to interaction with the heavily calcified lesion causing damage to the outer surface of the balloon material.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|