|
H10: manufacturing review: the device history records were reviewed with special attention to the raw materials, subassemblies, manufacturing process and quality control testing.This lot met all release criteria.There was nothing found to indicate there was a manufacturing related cause for this event.Investigation summary: the device was returned for evaluation.An attempt was made to inflate the device and a longitudinal rupture was noted in the balloon.Therefore, the investigation is confirmed for a longitudinal rupture.However, the investigation is inconclusive for the reported retraction issue as the device was unable to be fully functionally tested due to the rupture, and as the user's introducer sheath was not returned with the device.Per the reported event details, the target lesion was calcified and a wall stent was present during the procedure.Therefore, it is possible that patient and/or procedural issues contributed to the event.However, the definitive root cause for the reported or identified issues could not be determined based upon the available information.It is also unknown if the original sheath used in the procedure contributed to the reported retraction issue.Labeling review: the review of the ifu (instructions for use), indications, warnings, precautions, cautions, possible complications, and contraindications showed that the product labeling is adequate.H11: h3, h6 (results 1, conclusion 1) 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.
|