(b)(4).During processing of this complaint, attempts were made to obtain complete event, patient and device information.Evaluation summary: the dilator and rotating hemostasis valve (rhv) cap were returned.The teflon o-ring was not returned in the rhv or in the packaging tray.The reported dilator cap detachment was confirmed.A review of the lot history record revealed no manufacturing nonconformities issued to the reported lot.Additionally, a review of the complaint history identified no other incidents reported from this lot.All available information was investigated and a definitive cause for the reported detachment of the dilator cap in this incident could not be determined.The returned device analysis confirmed that the cap functioned as expected once it was pressed back onto the rhv.In this case, it is possible that the user technique of opening the rhv cap contributed to the reported cap detachment and subsequent o-ring detachment; however, this cannot be definitively confirmed.Based on the information reviewed, there is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|
This is filed because returned device analysis found that the teflon o-ring was not observed in the rotating hemostatic valve (rhv); if a device with missing o-ring were used in the anatomy, there is potential for air leak.It was reported that, during preparation of the steerable guiding catheter (sgc), when attempting to close the rotating hemostatic valve for flushing, the dilator cap detached from the dilator and could not be reinstalled.There was no patient involvement with the dilator and no clinically significant delay in the intended procedure.No additional information was provided regarding the sgc issue.Subsequently, returned device analysis revealed the teflon o-ring was separated from the dilator rotating hemostatic valve (rhv).
|