| Model Number |
N/A |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Break (1069)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Foreign Body In Patient (2687)
|
| Date of Event |
11/17/2022
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Implanted date: device was not implanted.Explanted date: device was not explanted.Initial reporter: occupation: materials management.The actual device was not available; therefore, the actual device will not be returned for evaluation.The investigation is currently ongoing.A follow-up report will be submitted once the investigation is complete.A review of the device history record of the product code/lot number combination was conducted with no findings.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The user facility reported that upon completing procedure, the destination slender started "threading" (unraveling).The sheath separated and a portion of the distal end remained in the artery.The doctor was able to remove the distal segment safely and applied a tr band.Per the doctor, there was no injury to the patient or artery.The patient was stable, and the procedure outcome was a success.Additional information was received on 08 dec 2022: the procedure performed for the patient, at the time was a lower extremity intervention with left radial access.There were no difficulties with arterial access, sheath, guidewire, or catheter insertion.A pre-deployment angiogram was performed.There was only difficulty during withdrawal.Difficulty removing and then the device broke in half.The dilator was in the sheath during removal.The estimated blood loss was less than 250cc.The doctor stated that it was possible patient spasm had occurred.He also mentioned that he may have underestimated the patient's artery size.If a spasm did occur there was no medical intervention necessary.
|
| |
|
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 the sheath encountered a spasm during withdraw and forcing withdraw during a spasm may have caused the separation.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 use failure modes & effects analysis (ufmea).
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|