| Model Number |
PPLUS120 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Entrapment of Device (1212)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Obstruction/Occlusion (2422)
|
| Date of Event |
10/26/2021
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This case was reviewed and investigated according to the manufacturer¿s policy.(b)(6).The pioneer plus catheter has not been returned for evaluation, thus no returned product investigation was performed.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that during a therapeutic peripheral procedure, while using the manufacturer's catheter, there was a grainy ultrasound image.The manufacturer's catheter was placed at the re-entry site in the distal sfa.During advancement of the needle on the second attempt, resistance was noted.Then, the non-manufacturer's re-entry wire was successfully inserted into the true lumen.However, during removal, the manufacturer's catheter can only be withdrawn together with the non-manufacturer's wire.After multiple manipulations, the occlusion could lengthen and the lower leg may have an even poorer arterial blood supply.The procedure was completed with a new device.No patient injury reported.This adverse event is being submitted out of abundance of caution.Based on the information received, it could not be determined if re-occlusion in the lower leg occurred during use of the manufacturer's catheter.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Block b5: this event is no longer reportable as stated in supplemental mdr #1 submitted on (b)(6) 2021.Block h3: the pioneer plus catheter was visually and microscopically inspected.Visual inspection found no damage that could have led to the reported failure.During functional testing, a guidewire movement test was performed using a 0.0150¿ mandrel.The mandrel passed from the distal tip to the exit port with no resistance encountered.The reported failure of removal as a system could not be confirmed.Block h6: a probable cause could not be determined since there was no damage observed that could have led to the reported failure.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
For clarification, there was no re-occlusion in the lower leg, or intervention, or patient injury, or status decline in the patient's health.Additionally, the returned manufacturer's device was evaluated and confirmed there was no damage observed that could have led to the device being removed as a system (no intervention).Since the reported device malfunction could not be replicated, there is no potential for harm.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Block b5: this event is no longer reportable per the additional information received.There was no lengthening of the occlusion.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Initial mdr reported a re-occlusion out of abundance of caution.However, per the additional information received on 11/15/2021, the occlusion did not lengthen.Therefore, this event is no longer reportable.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|