|
As reported, during an angioplasty procedure, a flexor raabe guiding sheath was opened and the stopcock was separated from the clear side-arm tubing.The sheath was not used, and another product was used to continue the procedure.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to the occurrence.The patient did not experience any adverse effects due to the occurrence.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Summary of event: as reported, during an angioplasty procedure, a flexor raabe guiding sheath was opened, and the stopcock was separated from the clear side-arm tubing.The sheath was not used, and another product was used to continue the procedure.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to the occurrence.The patient did not experience any adverse effects due to the occurrence.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 prior-to-use complaint device was returned to cook for investigation.The stopcock was separated from the side-arm tubing.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.No relevant non-conformances or additional complaints were noted on other final lots containing the same check-flo assembly raw material lot as the complaint device.The product ifu instructs the user to inspect the product upon removal from the package to ensure no damage has occurred.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 out of specification.However, because there were no related non-conformances or additional complaints on the lot and there are 100% inspections in place to capture this non-conformance, there is no evidence of additional non-conforming devices in-house or in the field.Cook has concluded that this is an isolated incident.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 quality control deficiency contributed to this event.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.
|