| Model Number |
G24935 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Fracture (1260)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient (2692)
|
| Date of Event |
07/15/2019
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Investigation is still pending, a follow up mdr will be submitted to include the investigation conclusions.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
(b)(4) study pt, site reported fracture of study stent one.Two zilver® ptx® v study stents were deployed during the index procedure on (b)(6) 2014.The study lesion was the left distal sfa.The study lesion was 120 mm long with 100% diameter stenosis, moderate calcification and no thrombus.The proximal reference vessel diameter (rvd) was 6.5 mm and the distal rvd was 5.5 mm.There was one patent runoff vessel.Entry site was contralateral.Pre-stent dilatation was performed with one inflation of a 5 mm x 140 mm balloon.The two study stents were deployed without difficulty.Post-stent dilatation was performed with one inflation of a 6 mm x 100 mm balloon.Final angiography measurements revealed 0 % residual stenosis in the study lesion.There was no thrombus or dissection and the entire length of the stents were apposed to the vessel wall.The patient was discharged on (b)(6) 2014 (one day post-procedure), taking aspirin and plavix.The 12-month x-ray was not performed.On (b)(6) 2019 (1890 days post-procedure), the study clinical assessment and imaging were completed.Per the site, study stent 1 had a type 1 fracture located in the mid-section of the stent.No fracture is noted of study stent 2.There is no clinical sequelae noted.(b)(6) lab analysis is not yet available.(b)(6) 2020 (b)(6) lab assessment indicates study stent number 1 has a type 3 fracture in stent segment 4.Study stent 2 has a type 1 fracture in stent segment 9.There is no stent deformation or changes in pattern type of either stent.No clinical sequelae was noted.This file has been created to capture the fracture of stent two.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
12-004 - study pt, site reported fracture of study stent one.Two zilver® ptx® v study stents were deployed during the index procedure on (b)(6) 2014.The study lesion was the left distal sfa.The study lesion was 120 mm long with 100% diameter stenosis, moderate calcification and no thrombus.The proximal reference vessel diameter (rvd) was 6.5 mm and the distal rvd was 5.5 mm.There was one patent runoff vessel.Entry site was contralateral.Pre-stent dilatation was performed with one inflation of a 5 mm x 140 mm balloon.The two study stents were deployed without difficulty.Post-stent dilatation was performed with one inflation of a 6 mm x 100 mm balloon.Final angiography measurements revealed 0 % residual stenosis in the study lesion.There was no thrombus or dissection and the entire length of the stents were apposed to the vessel wall.The patient was discharged on 05/13/2014 (one day post-procedure), taking aspirin and plavix.The 12-month x-ray was not performed.On (b)(6) 2019 (1890 days post-procedure), the study clinical assessment and imaging were completed.Per the site, study stent 1 had a type 1 fracture located in the mid-section of the stent.No fracture is noted of study stent 2.There is no clinical sequelae noted.Core lab analysis is not yet available.On (b)(6) 2020 core lab assessment indicates study stent number 1 has a type 3 fracture in stent segment 4.Study stent 2 has a type 1 fracture in stent segment 9.There is no stent deformation or changes in pattern type of either stent.No clinical sequelae was noted.This file has been created to capture the fracture of stent two.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Device evaluation: the ziv6-35-125-6-100-ptx device of lot number c976939 involved in this complaint was implanted in the patient, and was not available for evaluation.With the information provided, a document based investigation was conducted.Document review: prior to distribution ziv6-35-125-6-100-ptx devices are subjected to a visual inspection and functional checks to ensure device integrity.These inspections and functional checks are outlined in internal procedures in place at cirl.A review of the manufacturing records for ziv6-35-125-6-100-ptx of lot number c976939 did not reveal any discrepancies that could have contributed to this complaint issue.The review of relevant manufacturing records, confirms the failure mode has not previously occurred with the current lot number.Based on the information available to date, there is no evidence to suggest that there are any manufacturing issues associated with lot number c976939.It should be noted that the instructions for use (ifu0093-5) states the following: ¿indications for use: the zilver ptx drug-eluting stent in indicated for improving luminal diameter for the treatment of de novo or restenotic symptomatic lesions in native vascular disease of the above-the-knee femoropopliteal arteries having reference vessel diameter from 4 mm to 7 mm and total lesion lengths up to 140 mm per limb and 280 mm per patient.¿ the ifu also lists stent strut fracture as a known potential adverse event.There is no evidence to suggest the user did not follow the ifu.Image review: images were provided to support the complaint investigation.They were reviewed through cook research inc.(cri) and the following comments were provided by the independent reviewer : impression: 1.A type 3 fracture of the distal ziv6-35-125-6-100-ptx superior end at 60 months is confirmed.This likely represented the type 1 fracture that was the subject of the complaint report.2.A type 2 fracture of the proximal ziv6-35-125-6-100-ptx inferior end at 60 months is confirmed.3.The stented sfa and pa segment was severely calcified.Root cause review: a definitive root cause could not be determined from the available information.A possible root cause could be attributed stent fatigue.From the information provided it is known that two zilver ptx stents were implanted in 2014.It is possible that the stent became fatigued and fractured as a result of knee flexion over this time.Summary: complaint is confirmed as the failure was verified in the image(s).According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.Complaints of this nature will continue to be monitored for potential emerging trends.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|