| Model Number |
S-50-100-120-P6 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Migration (4003)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Pain (1994)
|
| Date of Event |
05/02/2019
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
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 stent remains in the patient.Investigation is not yet complete.A follow-up report will be submitted with all additional relevant information.The additional supera device referenced is being filed under separate medwatch report number.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that the procedure was performed to treat a 100% stenosed, chronic totally occluded, and moderately calcified de novo lesion in the right superficial femoral artery.On (b)(6) 2019, a 5.0x120mm and 5.0x100 supera self-expanding stents were implanted with a 3mm overlap.About one week post-procedure, the patient felt discomfort with pain and cold at the tip of their right foot.On (b)(6) 2019, an x-ray confirmed that the stents had moved and were no longer overlapping.A 5x60mm non-abbott stent was successfully deployed at the section were the supera stents had previously overlapped.No additional information was provided.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The device was not returned for evaluation.The reported patient effect of pain is listed as a potential adverse effect of peripheral percutaneous intervention and is listed in the supera instruction for use.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 identified no other similar incidents and/or complaints from this lot.Based on the information provided, a conclusive cause for the reported stent migration and subsequent patient effects could not be determined.It may be possible that location of the stent implant in conjunction with anatomical conditions and/or repetitive movement contributed to the stent migration; however, this could not be confirmed.The additional treatment and hospitalization are due to case circumstances.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|