|
As reported, during an artial fibrillation ablation, a safe-t-j amplatz extra-stiff support wire guide unraveled.The patient's anatomy was not stenosed, tortuous, calcified, or scarred.The wire was not altered from its original condition prior to use and resistance was not felt during insertion or removal.The wire was advanced through another manufacturer's sheath and the sheath was replaced with a second manufacturer's sheath.After the sheath exchange and upon removal of the wire, it was noticed that the "wire had broken, but the outside of the wire was intact but stretched out".The entire wire was removed manually without issue, and a snare was not used.The procedure was completed successfully.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 the occurrence.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Summary of event: as reported, during an artial fibrillation ablation, a safe-t-j amplatz extra-stiff support wire guide unraveled.The patient's anatomy was not stenosed, tortuous, calcified, or scarred.The wire was not altered from its original condition prior to use and resistance was not felt during insertion or removal.The wire was advanced through another manufacturer's sheath and the sheath was replaced with a second manufacturer's sheath.After the sheath exchange and upon removal of the wire, it was noticed that the "wire had broken, but the outside of the wire was intact but stretched out".The entire wire was removed manually without issue, and a snare was not used.The procedure was completed successfully.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 the occurrence.Investigation evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record (dhr), instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, 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.Cook also reviewed the product labeling, including the instructions for use (ifu).The customer followed all relevant instructions in the ifu 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, ifu, 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 that component failure unrelated to manufacturing or design deficiencies contributed to this incident.It was noted that the access site had no scarring as well as no calcification or tortuous anatomy.There was no resistance noted during removal of the wire.The exact conditions experienced during the event cannot be duplicated.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.
|