Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown or unavailable.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 or that a death or serious injury occurred; nor is it admission that any cook device caused, contributed to, or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|
It was reported that during a lower extremity angiography procedure, a cxi support catheter separated.The physician had obtained left pedal and right groin access.The cxi catheter was then advanced in pedal sheath over another manufacturer's.014 wire and the physician was able to cross the calcified chronic total occlusion of the superficial femoral artery (sfa) with resistance requiring a torque device.However, when the physician attempted to pull out the catheter, it completely separated over the wire.The catheter stayed on the wire and was removed causing no harm to the patient.No additional procedure was needed to treat the lesion.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient.The patient did not require any additional procedures or experience any adverse effects due to the occurrence.
|
Summary of event: it was reported that during a lower extremity angiography procedure, a cxi support catheter separated.The physician had obtained left pedal and right groin access.The cxi catheter was then advanced in pedal sheath over another manufacturer's.014 wire and the physician was able to cross the calcified chronic total occlusion of the superficial femoral artery (sfa) with resistance requiring a torque device.However, when the physician attempted to pull out the catheter, it completely separated over the wire.The catheter stayed on the wire and was removed causing no harm to the patient.No additional procedure was needed to treat the lesion.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient.The patient did not require any additional procedures or experience any adverse effects due to the occurrence.Investigation evaluation: reviews of the instructions for use (ifu) and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.A visual inspection was conducted as well.The complaint device was returned to cook for investigation.The returned device showed the catheter was separated into two sections.The first section 83.7cm from the proximal end, and the second section was 67.0cm from the distal end.The shaft separated at approximately 83.7cm from the distal end of the strain relief.Due to the way the catheter was received, several kinks were noted on both sections.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.Cook could not complete a review of the device history record (dhr) due to lack of lot information from the user facility.A global shipment search for all devices the reporting customer has bought in the past 3 years was performed but could not definitively determine the lot number of the complaint device.At this time, cook could not conclude that nonconforming product from the affected lot exists in house or in the field.Cook also reviewed the product labeling, including the instructions for use (ifu).The customer followed all relevant instructions in the ifu related to this failure.A review of the device master record (dmr) concluded that sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.The information provided upon review of the ifu, returned device, and complaint file 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 patient anatomy caused this incident.The risk analysis for this failure mode 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.
|