|
As reported, during an unspecified peripheral vascular procedure via pedal access, a roadrunner extra-support bare mandril wire guide unraveled.The wire was not altered from its original condition prior to use.Resistance was not encountered during insertion of the wire; however, the anatomy was calcified.Another manufacturer's atherectomy device was used with the wire, but reportedly did not get near the tip of the wire.Another manufacturer's balloons were used during the procedure, as well as an unspecified specialty catheter.The wire was not removed through a needle or other instrument.The wire unraveled but did not completely separate.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.
|
|
Date of event = "approximately two weeks ago" (from date aware of 27apr2023) pma/510(k) number = k171948.Device evaluated by mfg = other (81) - 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 reported, during an unspecified peripheral vascular procedure via pedal access, a roadrunner extra-support bare mandril wire guide unraveled.The wire was not altered from its original condition prior to use.Resistance was not encountered during insertion of the wire; however, the anatomy was calcified.Another manufacturer's atherectomy device was used with the wire, but reportedly did not get near the tip of the wire.Another manufacturer's balloons were used during the procedure, as well as an unspecified specialty catheter.The wire was not removed through a needle or other instrument.The wire unraveled but did not completely separate.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 distal tip of the wire was unraveled.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.One possibly related non-conformance was noted on the lot; however, all non-conforming product was scrapped and there are 100% inspections in place to capture the non-conformance.There have been no other reported complaints for this lot number.The product ifu cautions that withdrawal or manipulation of the distal spring coil portion of the wire guide through a needle tip may result in breakage and instructs the user to avoid forceful angulation.The ifu also 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 to specification.Although one possibly relevant non-conformance was noted on the lot, 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.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 calcified anatomy may have 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.
|