|
H3: device has been returned and preliminary evaluation has been performed, however, our investigation is ongoing and device evaluation summary will be included in our follow up report once our investigation has been completed.Corrected information: b5, d4 - lot number and unique identifier(udi), d7a, and d9.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.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Additional/corrected information: b5, h6 (annex a).Summary of event: as reported, while a flexor raabe guiding sheath was being removed from a patient, the distal end of the sheath broke.No adverse effects were reported due to the alleged malfunction.Access was obtained in the femoral artery to target the contralateral femoral artery.The anatomy was tortuous and calcified.The sheath was in place for approximately thirty minutes.The tip of the sheath separated upon removal of the device, and the coils were exposed.The dilator was not in place at the time of separation, and the sheath and dilator were not removed as a unit.A 0.035-inch wire was in the lumen of the sheath at the time of separation, and resistance was reported upon removal of the sheath.The hub of the sheath as used to pull the device from the patient.No part of the device remained in the patient.The patient did not require any additional intervention as a result of the event.Blood loss was not reported.The events reported under patient identifier 319616 and 319617 occurred during the same procedure.The case was completed after use of the two complaint devices associated with these events.Investigation evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record, drawing, instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.A visual inspection of the complaint device was also conducted.The complaint device was returned to cook for investigation.The sheath material was separated at ten centimeters from the check-flo; however, the sheath material was still attached to elongated coil.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.No related non-conformances were found, and there have been no other reported complaints for this lot number.Evidence from the complaint file, device history record, complaint history, manufacturing documents, and device failure analysis suggests that the device was manufactured to specification.There is no evidence of nonconforming devices from the complaint lot in house or in the field.The product ifu instructs the user to inspect the product to ensure no damage has occurred upon removal from the package and to reinsert the dilator if resistance is felt or expected during insertion or removal of the device.Cook has concluded that sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.Based on the information provided and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that patient¿s anatomy and unintentional use error contributed to this incident.The risk analysis for this failure mode was reviewed and no additional escalation was required.The appropriate personnel have been notified and cook will continue to monitor for similar events.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803 and is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement contained herein is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned, that a death or serious injury occurred, nor that any cook device caused, contributed to, or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|
|
Additional information was received and was inadvertently omitted from the last report submitted.Access was obtained in the femoral artery to target the contralateral femoral artery.The anatomy was tortuous and calcified.The sheath was in place for approximately thirty minutes.The tip of the sheath separated upon removal of the device, and the coils were exposed.The dilator was not in place at the time of separation, and the sheath and dilator were not removed as a unit.A 0.035-inch wire was in the lumen of the sheath at the time of separation, and resistance was reported upon removal of the sheath.The hub of the sheath as used to pull the device from the patient.The events reported under patient identifier (b)(6) occurred during the same procedure.The case was completed after use of the two complaint devices associated with these events.No part of the device remained in the patient.The patient did not require any additional intervention as a result of the event.Blood loss was not reported.
|