| 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 |
02/26/2018
|
|
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 4 additional reocclusion complaints were 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 left distal superficial femoral artery (sfa).Approximately 18 months after the index procedure, the patient¿s target lesion was reportedly reoccluded via duplex ultrasound (dus) imaging.A clinically driven revascularization was performed and the health care professional (hcp) deemed it was successful.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
|
|
H10: manufacturing review: lot history review revealed there are a total of (b)(4) complaints reported for lot number gfap2162 and the total of five complaints were reported for the allegation of reocclusion.The dhr review was conducted and there was nothing found to indicate there was a manufacturing related cause for this event.Investigation summary: the sample was not returned by the facility for further evaluation.It is known that approximately (b)(4) months after the index procedure, the patient¿s target lesion was reportedly reoccluded via duplex ultrasound (dus) imaging.A clinically driven revascularization was performed and the health care professional (hcp) deemed it was successful.The investigator assessed that the event was not related to the study device or procedure.Approximately (b)(4) months after the index procedure, the patient¿s target lesion was reportedly reoccluded via duplex ultrasound (dus) imaging.Label review: 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.H10: g4 h11: b5, b6, d3, d5 f12, g1, g2, h6 h11:section a through f - the information provided by bd 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 bd.
|
| |
|
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 left distal superficial femoral artery (sfa).Approximately 18 months after the index procedure, the patient¿s target lesion was reportedly reoccluded via duplex ultrasound (dus) imaging.A clinically driven revascularization was performed and the health care professional (hcp) deemed it was successful.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.New information: it was reported through a clinical registry that approximately 33 months post index procedure, reocclusion was identified via imaging.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|