The device was not returned for analysis.A review of the lot history record revealed no manufacturing nonconformities that would have contributed to this complaint.Additionally, a review of the complaint history of the reported lot revealed no indication to suggest a lot specific product quality issue.Based on the information provided, it is likely that the reported resistance during advancement resulting in failure to cross and balloon rupture was the result of interaction with the challenging anatomy.Additionally, it is likely that during removal, the ruptured balloon material caught on the introducer sheath and separated.The surgical procedure to remove the separated portion of the balloon was related to circumstances of the procedure.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|
It was reported that the procedure was to treat a de novo lesion in the anastomotic part of right pulmonary artery.The 12x40mm armada 35 balloon dilatation catheter (bdc) was advanced over a 0.035¿ non-abbott guide wire for dilatation.The bdc met resistance with anatomy and failed to cross.The bdc was removed and the guide wire was replaced with a non-abbott stiff guide wire.The balloon was slightly re-shaped to a banana shape due to the stenosis and tortuosity of the target lesion before being re-advanced.The bdc reached the target lesion; however, the balloon ruptured during second inflation at an unspecified pressure but below the rated burst pressure.During removal of the bdc, resistance with the introducer sheath was felt and the balloon part separated from the shaft.A cut-down procedure was performed to successfully remove the separated portion.There was no adverse patient sequela reported and no significant delay in the procedure reported.No additional information was provided.
|