As reported, during an unspecified procedure, another manufacturer's wire guide perforated a cxi support catheter during advancement of the wire.Access was obtained in the right femoral artery to treat a chronic total occlusion in the superficial femoral artery.The anatomy was calcified.The wire guide was inserted into the hub of the complaint device, and resistance was encountered upon advancement of the wire.The wire then perforated the catheter, proximal to the distal end.Another device was used to complete the procedure.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.Summary of event: as reported, during an unspecified procedure, another manufacturer's wire guide perforated a cxi support catheter during advancement of the wire.Access was obtained in the right femoral artery to treat a chronic total occlusion in the superficial femoral artery.The anatomy was calcified.The wire guide was inserted into the hub of the complaint device, and resistance was encountered upon advancement of the wire.The wire then perforated the catheter, proximal to the distal end.Another device was used to complete the procedure.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.Investigation evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record, drawings, instructions for use (ifu), and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was not returned to cook for investigation.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.No related non-conformances were recorded, and there have been no other reported complaints for this lot number.The device history record review provides objective evidence that the device was manufactured to specification.There is no evidence of nonconforming devices from the complaint lot in house or in the field.A review of relevant manufacturing documents was conducted.It was concluded that the device aspect in question was functionally inspected by quality control and no notable gaps in production or processing controls were noted.There is no indication that a design or process related failure mode contributed to the reported event.Sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.Cook also reviewed the product labeling.The instructions for use (ifu) provides the following information to the user related to the reported failure mode: how supplied ¿upon removal from package, inspect the product to ensure no damage has occurred.¿ cook concluded that a component failure was the cause of this incident.The appropriate personnel have been notified and cook will continue to monitor for similar events.Per the quality engineering risk assessment, no further action is required.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.
|