As reported, at the end of an atherectomy procedure, the hub of a flexor balkin guiding sheath separated from the device upon removal from the patient.The artery was heavily calcified and "friction" was encountered.The sheath had been in place for 1.5 hours.An unspecified 0.035 amplatz wire was in the lumen of the sheath at the time of separation; however, the dilator was not reinserted prior to removal of the sheath.There was no harm to the patient.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.
|
Summary of event: as reported, at the end of an atherectomy procedure, the hub of a flexor balkin guiding sheath separated from the device upon removal from the patient.The artery was heavily calcified and "friction" was encountered.The sheath had been in place for 1.5 hours.An unspecified 0.035 amplatz wire was in the lumen of the sheath at the time of separation; however, the dilator was not reinserted prior to removal of the sheath.There was no harm to the patient.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.Corrected information: (b)(6).Investigation evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record, instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.A visual inspection of the returned complaint device was also conducted.The customer returned the device to cook for investigation.The side arm was separated from the sheath.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.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¿: ¿all interventional or diagnostic instruments used with this product should move freely through the valve and sheath to avoid damage.¿ ¿sheath removal¿: ¿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.¿ cook has concluded an unintended user error that contributed to this failure mode.As the dilator was not reinserted prior to removal of the sheath per ifu recommendations.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.
|