|
We have received the complaint device for evaluation and we have confirmed the reported failure.We observed a longitudinal hole of about 2 mm in its balloon.No other defects were noted on this device.All of the balloon parts remained intact.Both inflation and irrigation lumen flushed properly when liquid was injected through the other end.The malfunction occurred during the second pass when the surgeon attempted to remove the residual clot from the patient's femoral artery.Our review of the lot history records for this lot did not find any discrepancies either in the manufacturing or packaging process that could be related to this incident.Further, we have not received any other complaints of a similar nature for devices from this lot.Based on our observation of the returned device, it is possible that some anatomical ( calcification or stenosis in the lesion area ) or procedural factors ( use of excessive force to remove the thrombus) may have contributed to the balloon rupture.Our ifu appropriately warns the users about the risks that could occur with the use of the embolectomy catheter including the risk of balloon rupture due to exposure to calcified plaque or overinflated balloon.The arterial embolectomy catheter is not recommended for the removal of fibrous, adherent or calcified material ( eg.Chronic clot, atherosclerotic plaque ).This catheter is not designed to withstand the additional pull force needed to remove these materials.There was no injury to the patient as the result of this incident.
|