|
Manufacturing review: the sample was not returned from the user facility; therefore, a device evaluation is unable to be performed.Lot history review revealed a total of three (3) complaints related to allegations of reocclusion for corporate lot number gfbv0470, which includes this complaint.A dhr review was conducted and there was nothing found to indicate there was a manufacturing related cause for this event.Investigation summary: the actual sample was not returned for evaluation.It is known that approximately 12 months after the index procedure, the patient¿s left superficial femoral artery (sfa) was reportedly reoccluded via dus imaging.A revascularization was performed and the hcp deemed it was successful.The investigator assessed that the event was not related to the study device or procedure.However, the lack of further information or the returned sample prevents both confirmation of the reported event and identification of a root cause(s).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.
|
|
It was reported through a post market clinical study 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 femoral artery.Approximately 12 months after the index procedure, the patient¿s left femoral artery was reportedly reoccluded.A 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.
|