|
As originally reported, during an angiogram with intervention of the left leg, a cxi support catheter separated from the hub of the device.An unspecified sheath was in the foot and another unspecified sheath was in the groin for subintimal arterial flossing with antegrade-retrograde intervention (safari) technique.The complaint device was inserted into the sheath in the foot, over an unknown wire guide, and an attempt was made to cross the occlusion.Calcification was noted within a segment of the vessel.A power injector was not used, and the fitting was not washed down with any solutions.Resistance was encountered upon removal of the catheter (through the sheath in the foot), at which point the hub separated.The device was completely removed from the patient, without further intervention.Upon return and initial evaluation of the device on (b)(6) 2023, the catheter material was separated at the level of the hub.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.
|
|
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.
|
|
Summary of event: as originally reported, during an angiogram with intervention of the left leg, a cxi support catheter separated from the hub of the device.An unspecified sheath was in the foot and another unspecified sheath was in the groin for subintimal arterial flossing with antegrade-retrograde intervention (safari) technique.The complaint device was inserted into the sheath in the foot, over an unknown wire guide, and an attempt was made to cross the occlusion.Calcification was noted within a segment of the vessel.A power injector was not used, and the fitting was not washed down with any solutions.Resistance was encountered upon removal of the catheter (through the sheath in the foot), at which point the hub separated.The device was completely removed from the patient, without further intervention.Upon return and initial evaluation of the device on 17apr2023, the catheter material was separated at the level of the hub.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), 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.The catheter was separated at the level of the hub, with catheter material remaining in the hub.An unknown wire was lodged in the catheter shaft, which was kinked and twisted.Cook reviewed the device history record (dhr).One relevant non-conformance was noted on the final lot and there were three relevant non-conformances on subassembly lots; however, all affected product was scrapped.There have been no additional complaints on the lot.Although relevant non-conformances were noted on the final and sub-assembly lots, all non-conforming product was scrapped, there are 100% inspections in place to capture this non-conformance, adequate inspection activities have been established, there is objective evidence that the dhr was fully executed, and no other lot-related complaints have been received from the field.Therefore, it was concluded that there is no evidence that additional non-conforming product exists in-house or in the field.The product ifu cautions ¿the catheter should not be advanced through an area of resistance unless the source of resistance is identified by fluoroscopy and appropriate steps are taken to reduce or remove the obstruction.¿ cook has concluded that sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.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.Based on the available information and results of the investigation, cook has concluded that the patient¿s calcified anatomy contributed to this event, as resistance was noted upon removal of the device.The risk analysis for this failure mode was reviewed and no additional escalation is 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.
|