|
Device evaluation summary: visual inspection shows no outward signs of any damage.Reason for return was undetermined.Conclusion: complaint is unconfirmed for component with technical issue.An analysis of this occurrence was performed; however, sample doesn't show any visual defect.However, sample was returned to supplier for evaluation and further analysis.Review of the device history record found no abnormalities during manufacturing that would cause or contribute to the reported event.Assessment against the medtronic risk management file pfmeca document indicates that the current risk zone does not exceed the risk zone predicted in the product pfmeca.There were no adverse patient effects as a result of this incidence.Medtronic will continue to monitor for future occurrences and trends.This regulatory report is being submitted as part of a retrospective review and remediation per d00953163 as part of a capa action.Medtronic is submitting this report to comply with fda reporting regulations under 21 cfr parts 4 and 803.This report is based upon information obtained by medtronic, which the company may not have been able to fully investigate or verify prior to the date the report was required by the fda.Medtronic has made reasonable efforts to obtain more complete information and has provided as much relevant information as is available to the company as of the submission date of this report.This report does not constitute an admission or a conclusion by fda, medtronic, or its employees that the device, medtronic, or its employee caused or contributed to the event described in the report.In particular, this report does not constitute an admission by anyone that the product described in this report has any ¿defects¿ or has ¿malfunctioned¿.These words are included in the fda 3500a form and are fixed items for selection created by the fda to categorize the type of event solely for the purpose of regulatory reporting.Medtronic objects to the use of these words and others like them because of the lack of definition and the connotations implied by these terms.This statement should be included with any information or report disclosed to the public under the freedom of information act.Any required fields that are unpopulated are blank because the information is currently unknown or unavailable.A good faith effort will be made to obtain the applicable information relevant to the report.If information is provided in the future, a supplemental report will be issued.
|
|
Medtronic received information that during use, the customer reported blood spurting from the custom pack's one-way-valve.The valve was replaced.There was no adverse effect to the patient.Additional information from the customer: after uneventful initiation of bypass and when testing the function of the left ventricular vent line of the tubing pack (identified as line 8 on page 7 of 10 of drawing for hy2u43r17) blood was spurting from the one way valve.The roller pump used for the vent line was stopped, the vent line was clamped distal and proximal to the one-way valve, the component was cut out and was replaced with a substitute one-way valve.For an unspecified reason the surgeon was unable to insert a retrograde cardioplegia cannula and only antegrade cardioplegia was given during the cabg x 2 procedure.Additional info from the sales rep: there is no allegation against the retrograde cannula. the identified culprit device is the vrv in the left vent line.Since blood was spurting from the potentially leaky site there is little info on an estimated blood loss. blood was a mess to clean up so likely 30-50 cc¿s no transfusion administered and no untoward effect on the patient.
|