Model Number VERSION 1.0 |
Device Problems
Entrapment of Device (1212); Mechanical Jam (2983)
|
Patient Problem
Vascular Dissection (3160)
|
Event Date 05/10/2023 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
H10: the medical device manufacturer (d3) and manufacturing location (g1) for the straub product was selected as unknown due to system limitations.The correct medical device manufacturer and manufacturing location are straub medical us.H10: as the lot number for the device was provided, a review of the device history records is currently being performed.The return of the sample is pending.However, an image was provided for review.The investigation of the reported event is currently underway.H10: d4 (expiration date: 08/2024).H11: section a through f ¿ the information provided by bd represents all the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant/reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bd.H3 other text : device pending return.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported that during a recanalization procedure, the wire was allegedly sucked back into the device during the run.It was further reported that the post angiogram showed a dissection of the vessel wall, which was due to the device being run in the subintimal plane and the wire being sucked back into the device, which caused this damage to the vessel wall.Reportedly, a covered stent was placed to fix the dissection.The patient was safe and stable.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
H10: the medical device manufacturer (d3) and manufacturing location (g1) for the straub product was selected as unknown due to system limitations.The correct medical device manufacturer and manufacturing location are straub medical us.H10: manufacturing review: a manufacturing review was conducted and there was nothing found to indicate there was a manufacturing-related cause for this event.Investigation summary: the sample was not returned for evaluation.However pictures/videos were provided for review.A physical investigation was not possible.The user report contains information regarding catheter mechanical jam.After review of the provided images there were not sufficient information to confirm mechanical jam.Therefore, the investigation is inconclusive for the reported issue.A clear root cause could not be identified but a blockage of the catheter represents a known inherent risk.Labeling review: a review of product labeling documentation (e.G., procedural instructions, indications, warnings, precautions, cautions, possible complications, contraindications, nursing guide, and unit label) did not find any product labeling inadequacy.H10: d4 (expiry date: 08/2024), g3, h6 (method).H11: h6 (result, conclusion).H11: section a through f ¿ the information provided by bd represents all the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant/reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bd.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported that during a recanalization procedure, the wire was allegedly sucked back into the device during the run.It was further reported that the post angiogram showed a dissection of the vessel wall, which was due to the device being run in the subintimal plane and the wire being sucked back into the device, which caused this damage to the vessel wall.Reportedly, a covered stent was placed to fix the dissection.The patient was safe and stable.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|