|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Description of event: as reported, a micropuncture transitionless stiffened cannula access set separated between the catheter and connector as the device was inserted into the femoral artery.The patient was not injured.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, the instructions for use, manufacturing instructions, and quality control data.One mips inner and outer catheter was received.The hub of the outer catheter was separated, there was material in the hub indicating material separation not hub separation.The catheter material was elongated at the separation point.No other issues were identified.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: precautions: this product is intended for use by physicians trained and experienced in diagnostic and interventional techniques.Standard techniques for placement of vascular access sheaths should be employed.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.With current information the cause of the complaint could not be established.However based on the review of the device history record, manufacturing deficiencies are not suspected.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.
|