| Model Number |
2842 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Detachment of Device or Device Component (2907)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Foreign Body In Patient (2687)
|
| Date of Event |
12/09/2021
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a tip fracture occurred.The 90 degree angle target lesion was located in the circumflex.A 190cm samurai guidewire was advanced, but the tip fractured after advancement past the lesion.An attempt to snare the fractured tip with a goose neck snare was made, but it was unsuccessful.The device was removed, however, the tip portion of the device remained inside the patient.The procedure was completed with another device.No patient complications were reported in relation to this event.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a tip fracture occurred.The target lesion was located in the circumflex.A 190cm samurai guidewire was advanced, but the tip fractured at the circumflex.An attempt to snare the fractured tip with a goose neck snare was made, but it was unsuccessful.The device was removed, but was not intact.The tip portion of the device remained inside the patient.The procedure was completed with another device.No patient complications were reported in relation to this event.It was further reported that the target lesion located in the circumflex had a 90 degree angle, and was not calcified.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a tip fracture occurred.The target lesion was located in the circumflex.A 190cm samurai guidewire was advanced, but the tip fractured at the circumflex.An attempt to snare the fractured tip with a goose neck snare was made, but it was unsuccessful.The device was removed, but was not intact.The tip portion of the device remained inside the patient.The procedure was completed with another device.No patient complications were reported in relation to this event.It was further reported that the target lesion located in the circumflex had a 90 degree angle, and was not calcified.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Device evaluated by mfr: the complaint device was received for analysis.As a result of observing the returned product, it was confirmed that the core, coil and in coil were broken at a position of about 40 mm from the distal tip, and that part of the tip was missing.In addition, as a result of observing the fracture surface with an electron microscope, dimples, which are a characteristic of ductile fracture were noted.Other parts of the product conformed to manufacturing standards, and no abnormalities could be confirmed.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|