One catheter with attached monoject 1.5 cc limited volume syringe and three-way stopcock was returned for evaluation.A non-edwards contamination shield was located on the catheter body between 81.5 cm and 98 cm proximal from the catheter tip.No introducer was returned.The contamination shield was removed for evaluation.The balloon was found to be ruptured around the central area of the balloon latex.The ruptured edges of the balloon latex appeared to be different shapes and were not able to match up.During testing, the catheter was able to be inserted without resistance into a lab 9fr introflex introducer which is the recommended size introducer per the ifu.All through lumens were patent without any leakage or occlusion.No visible damage to the catheter body or returned syringe was observed.Visual examination was performed under microscope at 20x magnification and with the unaided eyes.A device history record review was completed and documented that device met all specifications upon distribution.Customer report of catheter placement difficulty could not be confirmed during the evaluation; however, the balloon was found to be ruptured with missing latex.An investigation has been initiated to consider any potential manufacturing factors that may have contributed to this complaint and implement any necessary corrective actions.Invasive procedures involve some patient risks.Although serious complications are relatively uncommon, the physician is advised, before deciding to insert or use the catheter, to consider the potential benefits in relation to the possible complications.The techniques for insertion, methods of using the catheter to obtain patient data information, and the occurrence of complications is well described in the literature.It is common clinical practice to check balloon integrity by inflating it to the recommended volume in order to detect any asymmetry or leakage condition before use of the catheter.To avoid damage to the pulmonary artery and possible balloon rupture, the balloon should not be inflated above the recommended volume.It is unknown if user or procedural factors may have contributed to the event.Complaint histories for all reported events are reviewed against trending control limits on a monthly basis, and any excursions above the control limits are assessed and documented as part of this monthly review.
|