|
The healthcare professional reported that during a coil embolization procedure targeting the left internal iliac artery prior to stent-graft implantation, a 5 fr diagnostic catheter and coiling support were advanced to the target lesion., a cerenovus framing coil (frame s) was implanted.The complaint coil, a 20mm x 60cm deltafill 18 coil ((b)(6)) was used as the second coil; it was used in accordance with the instructions for use (ifu).The coil was inserted into the patient¿s body and the physician performed detachment maneuver.The delivery wire was pulled slowly, but it was observed that the coil was also pulled and it has not been detached.An attempt was made to detach the coil, but it could not detach.Two more unsuccessfully detachment attempts were made before it was replaced with another 20mm x 60cm deltafill 18 coil ((b)(6)) from the same lot (31178154), and the replacement coil was implanted without issue.The procedure was completed with a total of seven (7) cerenovus coils implanted.There was no report of any negative patient impact.On 09-feb-2024, information was received, per the information, the microcatheter used was [for] ¿coiling support.¿.
|
|
Manufacturer¿s ref.No: (b)(4).Information regarding patient identifier, date of birth, age, gender, weight, race, and ethnicity were not provided.Section d.2b: procode is krd/hcg.Section e.1: the initial reporter phone: (b)(6).The initial reporter email address was not available / reported.Based on complaint information, the device is not available to be returned for analysis.A review of manufacturing documentation associated with this lot (31178154) presented no issues during the manufacturing or inspection processes related to the reported complaint.There were no nonconformances related to device manufacture or inspection.Product analysis cannot be conducted as the product was not returned for analysis.No determination of causes and possible contributing factors could be made.As such, the investigation will be closed.With the information available and without the complaint product available to be returned for analysis, the reported product issue documented in the complaint cannot be confirmed through functional evaluation and analysis.Based on the manufacturing documentation review, there is no indication that the event is related to the device manufacturing process.Assignment of root cause for the event remains speculative and inconclusive, based on the limited information provided and without the return of the complaint device; however, it is possible that clinical and procedural factors, including device manipulation / interaction may have contributed to the reported failure.As part of the post market surveillance program, information from this complaint is trended for statistical signals and corrective / preventive action may be triggered at a later time.Since there was no evidence to suggest the event was related to a manufacturing or design issue, no corrective actions will be taken at this time.This report is being submitted pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been investigated or verified prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by cerenovus, or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the product, cerenovus, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial report, a follow-up report will be filed as appropriate.Missing information from this report is identified as blank; this information was not provided in the reported event or available at the time of report submission.The manufacturer will submit a supplemental report if new facts arise which materially alter information submitted in a previous mdr report.Additional information will be submitted within 30 days of receipt.
|