|
As reported, the check-flo valve of a flexor introducer sheath separated from the device during a right external iliac recanalization.Access was gained in the right common femoral artery targeting the right external iliac artery.The patient did not have any tortuous, calcified, or scarred anatomy.The device was used over a 0.035 inch amplatz wire guide.During retrieval of the device, the check-flo valve detached from the device.Resistance was not felt during removal.The device was pulled by the hub during removal, and the dilator was not in place.Another 9fr introducer was used to complete the procedure.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.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.
|
|
Description of event: as reported, the check-flo valve of a flexor introducer sheath separated from the device during a right external iliac recanalization.Access was gained in the right common femoral artery targeting the right external iliac artery.The patient did not have any tortuous, calcified, or scarred anatomy.The device was used over a 0.035 inch amplatz wire guide.During retrieval of the device, the check-flo valve detached from the device.Resistance was not felt during removal.The device was pulled by the hub during removal, and the dilator was not in place.Another 9fr introducer was used to complete the procedure.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, the instructions for use, manufacturing instructions, and quality control data.The customer returned kcfw-8.0-38-45-rb to cook for investigation.Physical examination of the returned device showed: visual inspection results, one device returned in a used condition.The sheath separated from the hub of the check-flo valve.Pin gauge measurement was taken of the hub, measuring 0.151 in.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.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 i 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.¿ ¿sheath removal¿ ¿insert a wire guide until its tip extends at least 10cm past the tip of the sheath.¿ ¿remove the sheath.Avoid applying traction to the 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.¿ ¿remove the wire guide.¿ ¿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.Cook has concluded a user error contributed to this failure mode.Failure to follow instructions per (ifu) , it was reported that the dilator was not reinserted during removal.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.
|