It was reported that a patient underwent a procedure with a preface sheath and a perforation of the sheath occurred.It was originally reported that during the procedure, the preface sheath malfunctioned.The procedure was completed successfully with a similar-like device.There was no patient consequence.Upon request, additional clarification was provided on the event on (b)(6) 2014.The preface sheath was obstructed near the tip.There was no physical damage to the preface sheath.The physician also experienced resistance with the sheath.The physician felt some resistance with the transseptal needle, in which there was perforation in the side of the sheath, without any contact with the patient.Therefore, the physician perceived the obstruction.The awareness date for this record is (b)(6) 2014 because additional information was received stating that there was a perforation of sheath which is indicative of a reportable event.
|
No device was received for analysis at the time of submission of the initial 3500a.Since the product was not returned for analysis, no product failure analysis can be conducted and no determination of possible contributing factors could be made.As such, the investigation will be closed.If the complaint device is received in the future we will reopen the complaint and perform the investigation as appropriate.The device history record was reviewed.In addition, the dhr review verifies that the device was manufactured in accordance with documented specification and procedures.(b)(4).
|