| Model Number |
1012581-26 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Failure to Advance (2524)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Cardiac Tamponade (2226)
|
| Date of Event |
11/14/2019
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Death
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
G9: exemption number e2019001-permits numbering sequence to begin with 10000, to avoid duplication of report numbers due to process transition.There may be gaps in numbering for reports submitted during the transition period.The device was received.The investigation is not yet complete.A follow-up report will be submitted with all additional relevant information.The additional graftmaster devices are being filed under separate medwatch report numbers.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that atherectomy was performed and caused a free perforation with extravasation in the heavily calcified right coronary artery.A 2.8x26mm graftmaster rx covered stent system (css) failed to cross due to the anatomy and the shaft kinked and separated.The separated shaft was simply withdrawn.A 2.8x16mm, 4.0x19mm, and 3.5x26mm graftmaster rx css also failed to cross due to the anatomy.A 3.5x16mm graftmaster rx css was advanced and the stent was deployed at 12 atmospheres; however, the perforation was not sealed.The patient experienced a cardiac tamponade, which was treated with pericardiocentesis; however, the patient expired.No additional information was provided.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
A visual and dimensional inspection was performed on the returned device.The reported failure to advance could not be tested as it was based on operational circumstances.The reported patient effect of death listed in the graftmaster rapid exchange coronary stent graft system, domestic instructions for use as a known patient effect of coronary stenting procedures.Abbott vascular medical affairs reviewed the reported information and a clinical review was performed.The conclusion was that death in this case is a result of the perforation.Delay caused by the inability to reach and exclude the perforation may have secondarily contributed to the patient¿s death.A review of the lot history record identified no manufacturing nonconformities issued to the reported lot that would have contributed to this event.Additionally, a review of the complaint history did not indicate a lot specific quality issue.The investigation determined the reported failure to advance and subsequent treatment appears to be related to circumstances of the procedure.A conclusive cause for the reported patient effect(s), and the relationship to the product, if any, cannot be determined.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture or labeling of the device.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|