|
As reported, prior to patient contact during an unknown procedure, the valve of a flexor ansel guiding sheath separated from the sheath upon removal from the package.The package was not damaged.The device was not used.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, prior to patient contact during an unknown procedure, the valve of a flexor ansel guiding sheath separated from the sheath upon removal from the package.The package was not damaged.The device was not used.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, and quality control data.The complainant returned (b)(4) prior to use to cook for investigation.Material separation was observed just below the hub.The flare was still in the cap and adapter.The coils extended up into the cap.The flare was separated from the sheath.No delamination of the flare was noted.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 resistance is anticipated or encountered during withdrawal of flexor sheath, consider carefully reinserting the dilator prior to continuing removal.Instructions for use sheath introduction 1.If the device has hydrophilic coating, activate the coating by wetting the outer surface of the device with heparinized saline.Note: for best results, maintain wetted condition of device during placement.How supplied upon removal from package, inspect the product to ensure no damage has occurred.Based on the provided evidence and the completed investigation, cook has concluded that a device component failure contributed to this incident.A capa has been previously opened to address this failure mode and is ongoing.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.
|