|
This report includes information known at this time.A follow-up report will be submitted should additional relevant information become available.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.
|
|
As reported, during a procedure involving a large aneurysm within the iliac artery, the hub of a flexor ansel guiding sheath separated from the device upon insertion of the sheath into the iliac artery.Access was obtained in the femoral artery and resistance was encountered upon advancement of the device into the iliac artery, which was reportedly very tortuous.The dilator was not in place at the time of hub separation; however, another manufacturer's wire guide was in the lumen of the sheath.The sheath hub was used to pull the device from the patient.After the hub separated, the user pulled the sheath back and removed it from the patient.A smaller flexor sheath was then used to complete the procedure.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Summary of event: as reported, during a procedure involving a large aneurysm within the iliac artery, the hub of a flexor ansel guiding sheath separated from the device upon insertion of the sheath into the iliac artery.Access was obtained in the femoral artery and resistance was encountered upon advancement of the device into the iliac artery, which was reportedly very tortuous.The dilator was not in place at the time of hub separation; however, another manufacturer's wire guide was in the lumen of the sheath.The sheath hub was used to pull the device from the patient.After the hub separated, the user pulled the sheath back and removed it from the patient.A smaller flexor sheath was then used to complete the procedure.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this 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 complaint device was returned to cook for investigation with the hub separated.The sheath flare had pulled free from the hub, leaving no material in the hub.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 "if resistance is encountered during sheath advancement, assess cause of resistance and consider dilation of any restriction identified or consider alternate treatment strategy.If flexor sheath is advanced through resistance, force to remove the sheath will be higher, increasing the risk of sheath material or hub separation upon withdrawal.¿ the ifu also states ¿remove the sheath.Avoid applying traction to the hub during removal.If resistance is anticipated or encountered during withdrawal of the flexor sheath, consider reinserting the dilator and removing the sheath and dilator as a unit.¿ 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 the patient¿s anatomy contributed to this event, as resistance was reported upon insertion of the device into the tortuous anatomy.It is also possible that failure to reinsert the dilator prior to removal and removal of the device by pulling the hub may have contributed to the 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.
|