The review of device history records did not demonstrate any non-conformities that could lead to the field complaint.The one device was returned for device investigation.The membrane was skirted around the middle of the device.It could not be determined the amount of adhesive present on the membrane at the proximal marker band.Three units from the same lot were taken from inventory and were reviewed under the m microscope.The sheath has uneven cuts but did not hinder resheathing and sheathing forces were still lower than historical data.The amount of glue at the membrane and struts near the proximal marker band appeared to be acceptable.Fatigue testing was performed for the three units and it was determined that there were 30, 60, and 35 resheathing cycles required to cause holes in the membrane.It could not be determined if the detachment of the membrane was due to lack of adhesion of the membrane at the struts near the proximal marker band or if during resheathing, the physician had the mvp device at an angle (instead of straight) which could cause damage to the membrane during resheathing.This report was inadvertently previously filed under the (b)(4) registration number of manufacturing site (mdr# 2029214-2015-002611).As a result we are refiling the report with the correct reverse medical corp manufacturer report number.
|