|
We have received the complaint device for evaluation.We have confirmed the reported incident.We observed the distal end of the catheter just below the proximal ligature had separated from the rest of the catheter lumen.We did not observe any excessive stretching on the catheter lumen.Water flushed properly when we injected liquid into the catheter lumen.Both of the ligature remained intact.We have contacted the complainant in order to get additional information relating to this incident.However, we were told that he would not be able to provide us with any further information.Hence, at this time, we could not conclusively determine the root cause of the incident.Our review of the lot history records for this lot did not find any discrepancies either in the manufacturing or packaging process that could be related to this incident.Further, we have not received any other complaints of a similar nature for devices from this lot.As part of our manufacturing process, a 100% balloon and winding inspection are performed on each of the manufactured product.At this time, we could not conclusively determine the root cause of the issue.However, based on our device evaluation, it is likely that some procedural factors ( use of excessive force to remove the clot) may have caused or contributed to this malfunction.As is common with other catheterization procedures, complications including tip separation may occur during use of embolectomy catheters.Our ifu properly identifies the risks associated with the use of the single lumen catheter to its users.To minimize the risk of vessel damage, balloon rupture, or tip detachment, the maximum recommended inflation volume and pull force for the catheter should not be exceeded.The arterial embolectomy catheter is not recommended for the removal of fibrous, adherent, or calcified material (e.G.Chronic clot, atherosclerotic plaque).This catheter is not designed to withstand the additional pull force needed to remove these materials.
|