|
As reported, during an unknown procedure, another manufacturer's wire guide perforated a cxi support catheter.The hydrophilic coating reportedly came off of the other manufacturer's wire guide; however, it is unknown if the coating came off of the wire prior to or after the wire perforated the catheter.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.
|
|
Description of event: as reported, during an unknown procedure, another manufacturer's wire guide perforated a cxi support catheter.The hydrophilic coating reportedly came off of the other manufacturer's wire guide; however, it is unknown if the coating came off of the wire prior to or after the wire perforated the catheter.Investigation ¿ evaluation.A visual inspection and functional testing of the returned device was conducted.A document based investigation was also performed including a review of complaint history, device history record, the instructions for use, manufacturing instructions, and quality control data.One cxi support catheter was received used.There was damage noted at 84.4cm from strain relief.A 1.5cm section of damage noted starting at 127cm from strain relief.A.018" wire was able to be advanced through the hub and exited the catheter tip, difficulty was encountered at the damaged section.The device was flushed without difficulty.The distal tip was clamped off with hemostat and flushed to check for leakage.No leak was detected.No other issues were noted during the analysis.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 analysis determined that the shaft of the device was damaged however, there was no evidence of a perforation.With current information a definitive cause for this complaint could not be determined.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.
|