|
As reported, an advance 35 lp low profile balloon catheter's balloon ruptured.Access was obtained at the femoral artery to target the external iliac artery.The patient's anatomy was not calcified or tortuous.The complaint device was used "as usual" however, the balloon would not inflate and ruptured.Just the balloon was removed, and another manufacture's balloon was used to complete the procedure.The balloon was not inflated inside of a stent prior to the rupture.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient's body.The patient did not require any additional procedures or experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Summary of event: as reported, an advance 35 lp low profile balloon catheter's balloon ruptured.Access was obtained at the femoral artery to target the external iliac artery.The patient's anatomy was not calcified or tortuous.The complaint device was used "as usual" however, the balloon would not inflate and ruptured.Just the balloon was removed, and another manufacture's balloon was used to complete the procedure.The balloon was not inflated inside of a stent prior to the rupture.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient's body.The patient did not require any additional procedures or experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.Investigation evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record (dhr), instructions for use (ifu), drawings, and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was not returned to cook for investigation.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 was reviewed, and the customer followed all relevant instructions related to this failure.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, and complaint file 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 component failure contributed to this incident.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.
|