|
Customer name and address: (b)(6).Device evaluated by mfg - device evaluation has begun; however, a conclusion is not yet available.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 originally reported, during a lower extremity angiogram with placement of a balloon-dilated stent within the common femoral artery, another manufacturer's wire guide could not be inserted into the hub of a flexor high-flex ansel guiding sheath.The dilator was inside the sheath at the time of the event.Another sheath was 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.Upon return and initial evaluation of the device, delamination was noted within the flare of the sheath.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Summary of event: as originally reported, during a lower extremity angiogram with placement of a balloon-dilated stent within the common femoral artery, another manufacturer's wire guide could not be inserted into the hub of a flexor high-flex ansel guiding sheath.The dilator was inside the sheath at the time of the event.Another sheath was 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.Upon return and initial evaluation of the device, delamination was noted within the flare of the sheath.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.A 0.035-inch wire guide was passed through the dilator; however, the dilator would only advance approximately 17-centimeters into the sheath from the distal tip of the hub, prior to meeting heavy resistance.There was no visible damage to the sheath or dilator; however, upon removing the hub from the sheath, delamination was noted within the sheath flare.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.One relevant non-conformance was noted on a sub-assembly lot; however, the affected product was scrapped, and 100% inspections are in place to capture the non-conformance.There have been no other reported complaints for this lot number or any lot number with the same subassembly lot.Cook investigated all similar devices inspected by the same personnel, during the same week, as the complaint device.Seven relevant non-conformances were noted; however, all affected product was scrapped, and 100% inspections are in place to capture the non-conformance.A search of complaint history found one additional related complaint on the devices inspected by the same personnel as the complaint device.None of the lots involved shared any similarities other than quality control personnel.There has been no increase in the occurrence rate for this failure mode.Cook has concluded that this is an isolated incident.The responsible personnel have been notified.The product ifu instructs ¿insert the dilator completely into the sheath.¿ 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, there is no evidence of non-conforming devices in-house or in the field, as all non-conforming product was scrapped, there are 100% inspections in place to capture this non-conformance, adequate inspection activities have been established, and there is objective evidence that the dhr was fully executed.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 manufacturing and 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.
|