|
As reported, during a port placement, the wire of a micropuncture transitionless access set separated.The left internal jugular vein was accessed with no issues.Upon successful placement of a transitional introducer over the wire, the wire separated when removing the wire and inner dilator/cannula of the device in order to place another wire.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional intervention due to this occurrence.The patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.Additional event information has been requested.
|
|
Event summary: as reported, during a port placement, the wire of a micropuncture transitionless access set separated.The left internal jugular vein was accessed with no issues.Upon successful placement of a transitional introducer over the wire, the wire separated when removing the wire and inner dilator/cannula of the device in order to place another wire.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional intervention due to this occurrence.The patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.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, drawing, the instructions for use, manufacturing instructions, specifications, and quality control data.The complainant returned one micropuncture transitionless access set to cook for investigation.Physical examination of the returned device showed: one device received.The wire is through the lumen of the inner catheter.The distal weld of wire is broken resulting in coil elongation.Distal weld is not present.There is no evidence from device failure analysis that the complaint was manufactured out of specification.A review of the device history record (dhr) 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 related complaints from the lot 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: ¿do not attempt to insert or withdraw the wire guide and/or introducer if resistance is felt.¿ ¿withdrawal or manipulation of the distal spring coil portion of the mandril wire guide through a needle tip may result in breakage.¿ cook confirmed this complaint based on customer testimony and device evaluation.Cook has concluded patient anatomy has possibly contributed to this device failure.There is no evidence the device was manufactured out of specification.Per the quality engineering risk assessment, no further action is warranted.Cook medical 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.
|