|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown or unavailable.E1: name and address (b(6).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 an aortogram and angiogram of the right leg via contralateral access, a flexor high-flex ansel guiding sheath was difficult to remove from the patient.The bifurcation was acute, and the anatomy was heavily calcified.Another manufacturer's wire was used during the procedure.Resistance was not reported upon insertion of the sheath.Resistance was encountered upon attempted removal of the sheath; therefore, the user attempted to put the wire and dilator back into the sheath for removal, but ultimately, force had to be used to remove the sheath from the patient.The customer did not report any damage to the sheath.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.Additional information: e1 (b)(6).Summary of event: as reported, during an aortogram and angiogram of the right leg via contralateral access, a flexor high-flex ansel guiding sheath was difficult to remove from the patient.The bifurcation was acute, and the anatomy was heavily calcified.Another manufacturer's wire was used during the procedure.Resistance was not reported upon insertion of the sheath.Resistance was encountered upon attempted removal of the sheath; therefore, the user attempted to put the wire and dilator back into the sheath for removal, but ultimately, force had to be used to remove the sheath from the patient.The customer did not report any damage to the sheath.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 (dhr), 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.Approximately thirteen centimeters from the distal tip, 6.6-centimeters of the sheath was compressed.The distal tip was slightly out-of-round, and a kink was noted 29.3-centimeters from the distal tip.It is likely that the damage occurred during device return, as damage was not reported by the customer.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.A review of the device history record found no relevant non-conformances on the lot.A review of complaint history found no additional complaints for this lot number.The product ifu states ¿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.¿ a review of the device master record (dmr) 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 information provided and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that the patient¿s anatomy contributed to this event, as the anatomy was highly calcified, and the bifurcation was acute.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.
|