|
Pma/510 k #: p050017 s002 and s003.Device evaluation: the ziv5-18-125-9-40 device of lot number c1757070 involved in this complaint was not available for evaluation.With the information provided, a document-based investigation was conducted.Document review: prior to distribution ziv5-18-125-9-40 devices are subjected to a visual inspection and functional checks to ensure device integrity.These inspections and functional checks are outlined in internal procedures in place at cirl.A review of the manufacturing records for ziv5-18-125-9-40 of lot number c1757070 did not reveal any discrepancies that could have contributed to this complaint issue.The review of relevant manufacturing records confirms the failure mode has not previously occurred with the current lot number.Based on the information available to date, there is no evidence to suggest that there are any manufacturing issues associated with lot number c1757070.It should be noted that the instructions for use (ifu0043-9) states the following: ¿introduce the extra or ultra stiff wire guide (7.0 and 6.0 french [2.3 and 2.0 mm] systems accept 0.035 inch [0.89 mm] wire guide; 5.0 french [1.67 mm] system accepts 0.018 inch [0.46 mm] wire guide) through the access catheter across the distal segment of the target lesion.¿ there is evidence to suggest the user did not follow the ifu.Root cause review: a definitive root cause of the use of a non-recommended wire guide was identified from the available information.From the information provided it is known that a 0.014¿ wire guide was used with the device during the procedure.As per the ifu, a 0.018¿ wire guide is required for use with this device to ensure adequate support during advancement, deployment and withdrawal of the device during the procedure, the use of a smaller than recommended wire guide may have provided insufficient support to the device during advancement resulting in failure to cross the target lesion.From the information provided it is also known that the patient exhibited a tortuous and calcified anatomy.It is possible that this also contributed to the difficulty encountered by the user when trying to cross the lesion with the non-recommended wire guide.Summary: the complaint is confirmed based on customer testimony.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.Complaints of this nature will continue to be monitored for potential emerging trends.
|