|
As initially reported, another manufacturer's atherectomy device was unable to advance through a flexor ansel guiding sheath's hub during an atherectomy procedure.Another sheath of the same type was used to successfully complete the procedure.Upon return and initial evaluation of the device, the shaft was noted to be separated below the hub and the inner coils were exposed.Additional information has been requested.
|
|
Summary of event: as initially reported, another manufacturer's atherectomy device was unable to advance through a flexor ansel guiding sheath's hub during an atherectomy procedure.Another sheath of the same type was used to successfully complete the procedure.Upon return and initial evaluation of the device, the shaft was noted to be separated below the hub and the inner coils were exposed.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 complaint device was also conducted.The used complaint device was returned to cook for investigation.The sheath was damaged/separated.The device was received with the separated section, extending 1.4 centimeters from the white cap, attached to the hub.The coil is exposed and protruding from the point of separation.The other manufacturer¿s atherectomy device was not returned with the sheath.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.No related non-conformances were found, and there have been no other reported complaints for this lot number.The product ifu states ¿all interventional or diagnostic instruments used with this product should move freely through the valve and sheath to avoid damage.¿ the information provided upon review of the dmr, dhr, ifu, and investigation of the returned device suggests that there is evidence the device was manufactured to specification.There is no evidence of non-conforming devices in-house or in the field.Cook has concluded that sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.Based on the information provided and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that a component failure contributed to this failure mode.The risk analysis for this failure mode was reviewed and no additional escalation was required.The appropriate personnel have been notified and cook will continue to monitor for similar events.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.
|