| Model Number |
N/A |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Material Separation (1562); Unraveled Material (1664); Physical Resistance/Sticking (4012)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
04/05/2022
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The user facility reported that the patient received a percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (pta) of the upper and lower leg.During the procedure the physician noticed a calcified puncture site.After the successful treatment of the different closures, the doctor wanted to pull back the destination guiding sheath.He noticed a higher resistance as he introduced the sheath, due to the calcified puncture site.He increased the force just a little bit and suddenly the sheath tore into two pieces, still connected with the braided inner wire.The distal part was still in the patient and just a little piece showed up over the skin.The physician was able to grab the distal part with a tweezer and pulled it completely out of the patient.After that he removed the 0.035" wire and closed the puncture site with manual compression, not with an angio-seal as mentioned in the report.The patient has been treated as intended.There was no significant delay of the procedure.Additional information was received on 13 apr 2022: the physician did not mention a tortuous anatomy, he mentioned a higher resistance during the insertion and the withdraw due to a calcified vessel.There was no patient spasm when attempting withdraw from anatomy with increased force.The patient condition was stable, as it was understood the patient was not harmed.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Implanted date: device was not implanted.Explanted date: device was not explanted.Occupation-nurse manager.(b)(4).The actual device has been returned for evaluation.The investigation is currently ongoing.A follow up report will be submitted once the investigation is complete.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This report is being submitted as follow-up no.1 to provide the completed investigation results.The actual device was not returned; therefore, an evaluation of the actual device was unable to be conducted.The complaint cannot be confirmed for sheath separation because the sample was not returned for assessment.The exact root cause could not be determined.The likely root cause is that the calcified entry site caused resistance during withdrawal of the sheath, and the extra force the physician applied tore the sheath.Review of device history record (dhr) showed there were no issues noted during manufacture of the product that could have contributed to this complaint condition.Currently no action is recommended since this risk evaluation is within the predetermined limits in the design failure mode & effects anaylsis (dfmea).
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|