|
As reported, while placing a cxi support catheter over a wire the radiopaque tip of the support catheter separated from the rest of the device.The target access site was the groin, and we were using a hydro st.The marker separated while on the wire.The device did not make patient contact.When the user noticed the issue, they removed the catheter and replaced with another device of the same type.No unintended section of the device remained inside of the patient's body.No additional procedures were required due to the occurrence.No adverse effects were reported due to the occurrence.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Summary of event: as reported, while placing a cxi support catheter over a wire the radiopaque tip of the support catheter separated from the rest of the device.The target access site was the groin, and we were using a hydro st.The marker separated while on the wire.The device did not make patient contact.When the user noticed the issue, they removed the catheter and replaced with another device of the same type.No unintended section of the device remained inside of the patient's body.No additional procedures were required due to the occurrence.No adverse effects were reported due to the occurrence.Corrected information: h6 (annex a and g).Investigation evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record, drawings, instructions for use (ifu), personnel interviews, and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.A visual inspection and dimensional verification of the complaint device was also conducted.The complainant returned one cxi support catheter to cook for investigation.The tip of the catheter was frayed and measured 4 mm.Cook completed a review of the device history record (dhr).The dhr for the reported lot found no relevant non-conformances.Cook complete a document review.The document review confirmed that adequate manufacturing specifications, operation parameters, and the design verification testing of the device are in place to identify and prevent this failure mode prior to distribution.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.Examination of the returned device, as well as communication with production, suggests that it is possible that the complaint device was manufactured out of specification.Cook has concluded that a manufacturing deficiency at the subassembly level likely contributed to this incident.The applicable operators were retrained to the applicable steps to prevent this failure from occurring again in the future.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.
|