|
As reported, during an endovascular procedure involving the femoral artery, a flexor raabe guiding sheath was being advanced to the lesion location when the hemostatic valve separated.The sheath was then removed and replaced with a new device to complete the procedure.No portion of the device was left in the patient.This did not result in the need for another procedure or prolonged hospitalization.The patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.Additional information has been requested.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Description of event: as reported, during an endovascular procedure involving the femoral artery, a flexor raabe guiding sheath was being advanced to the lesion location when the hemostatic valve separated.The hub of the device was being used to position the device when it separated.The dilator and a wire guide were in place when the separation occurred.After the hub separated the dilator and sheath were removed as a unit and replaced with a new device to complete the procedure.No resistance was felt when inserting or removing the device.Minimal bleeding was noticed.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, drawings, the instructions for use, manufacturing instructions, quality control data, and specifications.The complainant returned kcfw-8.0-38-55-rb-raabe used to cook for investigation.Physical examination of the returned device showed: one 8fr kcfw received.Inspection found the check flo was separated from the flare.No other damaged noted.The cap id was measured and within specification.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: "warnings: if resistance is encountered during advancement of flexor sheath, assess cause of resistance and consider dilation of any restriction identified or consider alternate treatment strategy.If flexor sheath is advanced through resistance, force to remove the sheath will be higher, increasing the risk of sheath material or hub separation upon withdrawal.Reinsertion of dilator prior to removal of flexor sheath increases the strength of the sheath and lessens the risk of device separation.If resistanceis anticipated or encountered during withdrawal of flexor sheath, consider carefully reinserting the dilator prior to continuing removal.Precautions: in order to ensure device compatibility, choose a sheath size large enough to accommodate the maximum outer diameter of any devices that will be placed through the sheath.All interventional or diagnostic instruments used with this product should move freely through the valve and sheath to avoid damage.Instructions for use: sheath introduction: 1.Ensure that the inner diameter (id) of the sheath is appropriate for the maximum diameter of the instruments to be introduced.2.Using the side-arm of the valve, flush the sheath by filling the sheath assembly completely with heparinized saline.3.Flush the dilator with heparinized saline.Sheath removal: 2.Remove the sheath.Avoid applying traction to hub during removal.If resistance is anticipated or encountered during withdrawal of the flexor sheath, consider reinserting the dilator and removing the sheath and dilator as a unit.How supplied: upon removal from package, inspect the product to ensure no damage has occurred." 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.Based on the provided evidence and the completed investigation, cook has concluded patient anatomy contributed to this incident.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.
|