|
As reported, during a procedure involving an occluded femoral artery, a cxi support catheter separated.Resistance was reported upon advancement of the device.The catheter was removed and the device was noted to be separated.Another device of the same type was used to complete the procedure.The reporter stated that a scar or obstruction might have contributed to the event.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Description of event: as reported, during a procedure involving an occluded femoral artery, a cxi support catheter separated.Resistance was reported upon advancement of the device.The catheter was removed and the device was noted to be separated.Another device of the same type was used to complete the procedure.The reporter stated that a scar or obstruction might have contributed to the event.Investigation ¿ evaluation.A visual inspection of the returned device was conducted.A document based investigation was also performed including a review of complaint history, device history record, documentation, drawings, the instructions for use, manufacturing instructions, quality control data, and specifications.One cxi was received in 2 sections.Biomatter was present.The proximal section measured 31.7cm and the distal section measured 121cm with material elongation.The separation points awee jagged and torn.A review of the device history record found no non-conformances related to the reported failure mode.Because there are no related non-conformances, adequate inspection activities have been established, there is objective evidence that the dhr was fully executed, and no other lot related complaints that have been received from the field, it was concluded that there is no evidence that nonconforming product exists in house or in field.A review of complaint history records shows no other complaints associated with the complaint device lot.The instructions for use (ifu), provides the following information to the user related to the reported failure mode: the catheter should not be advanced through an area of resistance unless the source of resistance is identified by fluoroscopy and appropriate steps are taken to reduce or remove the obstruction.A review of relevant manufacturing documents was conducted.It was concluded that the device aspect in question was visually/functionally inspected by quality control and no related gaps in production or processing controls were noted.The investigation conclusion cause was traced to patient anatomy as the physician reported that the patient's anatomy included occlusive arterial diseases of lower extremity including scarring and obstruction.Per the quality engineering risk assessment, no further action is warranted.Cook will continue to monitor this device via the complaints database for similar complaints.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803.This report is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement made in it is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned; that a death or serious injury occurred; or that any cook device caused or contributed to; or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|