As reported, a beacon tip torcon nb advantage angiographic catheter was used during a mapping procedure prior to liver radioembolization (yttrium-90).After mapping was complete, the physician noted a pseudoaneurysm, indicating a possible prior dissection.Although there has been no alleged malfunction of the catheter, the physician reportedly suspects that the catheter may have caused the dissection during the mapping procedure, which subsequently may have led to the pseudoaneurysm.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown or unavailable.D4: per the customer, possible rpns are (b)(4).This report includes information known at this time.A follow-up report will be submitted should additional relevant information become available.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803 and is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement contained herein is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned, that a death or serious injury occurred, nor that any cook device caused, contributed to, or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Summary of event: as reported, a beacon tip torcon nb advantage angiographic catheter was used during a mapping procedure prior to liver radioembolization (yttrium-90).After mapping was complete, the physician noted a pseudoaneurysm, indicating a possible prior dissection.Although there has been no alleged malfunction of the catheter, the physician reportedly suspects that the catheter may have caused the dissection during the mapping procedure, which subsequently may have led to the pseudoaneurysm.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.Investigation evaluation: reviews of the instructions for use (ifu), drawings, manufacturing instructions, and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was not returned to cook for investigation.The lot number was not provided to cook; therefore, the device history record and complaint history could not be reviewed.A search of sales to the customer was unable to determine the lot.The product ifu states ¿if resistance is encountered during manipulation, stop and determine the cause before proceeding any further.¿ the information provided upon review of the dmr, ifu, and customer testimony suggests that there is evidence the device was manufactured to specification.There is no evidence of non-conforming devices in-house or in the field.Based on the information provided and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that a definitive cause for this event could not be determined.Multiple attempts to obtain additional information from the customer were unsuccessful.The risk analysis was reviewed, and no additional escalation was required.The appropriate personnel have been notified and cook will continue to monitor for similar events.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803 and is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement contained herein is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned, that a death or serious injury occurred, nor that any cook device caused, contributed to, or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|