• Decrease font size
  • Return font size to normal
  • Increase font size
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: PENUMBRA, INC. BENCHMARK 6F 071 DELIVERY CATHETER; DQY

  • Print
  • Share
  • E-mail
-
Super Search Devices@FDA
510(k) | DeNovo | Registration & Listing | Adverse Events | Recalls | PMA | HDE | Classification | Standards
CFR Title 21 | Radiation-Emitting Products | X-Ray Assembler | Medsun Reports | CLIA | TPLC
 

PENUMBRA, INC. BENCHMARK 6F 071 DELIVERY CATHETER; DQY Back to Search Results
Catalog Number BMK6F105
Device Problems Break (1069); Unraveled Material (1664)
Patient Problem No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
Event Date 03/24/2023
Event Type  malfunction  
Manufacturer Narrative
This device is available for return.A follow up mdr will be submitted upon completion of the device investigation.
 
Event Description
The patient was undergoing a coil embolization procedure in the right internal carotid artery (ica) using a benchmark 6f 071 delivery catheter (benchmark), non-penumbra coils, a non-penumbra microcatheter and a non-penumbra micro-guide catheter.During the procedure, the physician successfully implanted the coils in the target vessel.While performing a series of contrast runs, the physician noticed that only a small amount of the contrast came out the benchmark and the imaging was a little less cloudy than usual.The physician suspected a leak and decided to remove the benchmark.Subsequently, while retracting the benchmark, the distal end of the benchmark fractured and unraveled in the brachial artery.Therefore, a vascular surgeon performed a surgical cut down to retrieve the fractured distal end of the benchmark from the brachial artery.It was also reported that the benchmark might have been damaged at the beginning of the procedure.The procedure ended at this point.There was no report of an adverse effect to the patient.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
Evaluation of the returned benchmark confirmed that the catheter was fractured near the distal end.This damage typically occurs due to retraction against resistance.Based on the reported complaint, it is unknown if resistance was experienced.Further evaluation revealed multiple kinks along the catheter shaft and on the distal tip.Stretching was also found on the distal fractured segment.The kinks on the distal tip may have contributed to the small amount of contrast coming out of the benchmark during the procedure and maybe the reported damage at the beginning of the procedure.Several of these kinks were likely incidental and may have occurred post-procedure.Evaluation also revealed a cut on the distal tip.The cut likely occurred during surgical cut down to retrieve the distal fractured segment and was incidental to the complaint.Penumbra catheters are inspected during in-process inspection and during quality inspection after manufacturing.The manufacturing records for this lot were reviewed and did not reveal any outstanding discrepancies, design, or quality concerns.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
BENCHMARK 6F 071 DELIVERY CATHETER
Type of Device
DQY
Manufacturer (Section D)
PENUMBRA, INC.
one penumbra place
alameda CA 94502
Manufacturer Contact
veronica farris
one penumbra place
alameda, CA 94502
5107483200
MDR Report Key16773196
MDR Text Key313634705
Report Number3005168196-2023-00176
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code DQY
UDI-Device Identifier00814548014012
UDI-Public814548014012
Combination Product (y/n)N
Reporter Country CodeFR
PMA/PMN Number
K142321
Number of Events Reported1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Foreign,Health Professional,Company Representative
Reporter Occupation Physician
Type of Report Initial,Followup
Report Date 01/01/2005,08/20/2023
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Is this an Adverse Event Report? No
Is this a Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator Health Professional
Device Catalogue NumberBMK6F105
Device Lot NumberF00003740
Was Device Available for Evaluation? Device Returned to Manufacturer
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? Yes
Was the Report Sent to FDA? Yes
Date Report Sent to FDA01/01/2005
Date Report to Manufacturer01/10/2005
Initial Date Manufacturer Received 03/24/2023
Initial Date FDA Received04/19/2023
Supplement Dates Manufacturer Received07/21/2023
Supplement Dates FDA Received08/20/2023
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? Yes
Date Device Manufactured10/25/2022
Is the Device Single Use? Yes
Is This a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial
Patient Sequence Number1
-
-