H3.Device evaluation: the device was returned for evaluation.Customer report of broken valve holder was confirmed.As received, one of the three legs of the valve holder was broken off with jagged edge at the end.The holder leg appeared to match up with holder.All three green sutures were cut at the cutting channels and each were approximately 4cm in length.Valve was not returned.The investigation is still in progress; therefore, a conclusion has yet to be established.A supplemental report will be submitted accordingly upon investigation completion.Edwards will continue to review and monitor all events.Trends are monitored on a monthly basis and if action is required, appropriate investigation will be performed.
|
Added information to section d4 (expiration date) and h4 (device manufacturer date) updated section b4 (date of this report), g3 (date received by manufacturer), h6 (type of investigation), h6 (investigation findings) and h6 (investigations conclusions).H10: additional manufacturer narrative: per product evaluation, customer report of broken valve holder was confirmed.As received, one of the three legs of the valve holder was broken off with jagged edge at the end.The holder leg appeared to match up with holder.All three green sutures were cut at the cutting channels and each were approximately 4cm in length.Valve was not returned.A photograph of the device was provided by the customer, which was consistent with the product evaluation findings.A dhr review was performed, and no related manufacturing nonconformances were identified.The holder lot related to the subject device passed incoming sampling inspections for molding defects and gross abnormalities.A lot history review identified one additional complaint associated with the same supplier finished goods lot.However, this complaint was associated with a different component material lot number and edwards receiving inspection lot when compared to the subject complaint.Therefore, there is no indication that the reported event was the result of a supplier manufacturing error based on the lot history review.It is possible that the breakage was caused by handling of the device, however, no information was provided suggesting that a customer handling error contributed to the reported event.Based on the information available, a definitive root cause is unable to be determined at this time.
|