|
As reported, during an unspecified vascular procedure, a cxi support catheter separated upon removal of the device.Per the reporter, the catheter broke in multiple locations along the shaft and at the hub.The procedure was successfully completed with the complaint device.All catheter fragments were removed manually over the unknown wire guide.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.
|
|
Summary of event: as reported, during an unspecified vascular procedure, a cxi support catheter separated upon removal of the device.Per the reporter, the catheter broke in multiple locations along the shaft and at the hub.The procedure was successfully completed with the complaint device.All catheter fragments were removed manually over the unknown wire guide.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.The catheter was received in five segments, along with the hub.The first segment measured 83.5-centimeters, the second segment measured 40.6-centimeters, the third segment measured 13.5-centimeters, the fourth segment measured 10-centimeters, and the fifth segment measured 9-centimeters.The inner coil and lining were exposed.Delamination was noted, due to the separation.No catheter material remained in the hub.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.A review of the device history record found no relevant non-conformances on the final or sub-assembly lots.A review of complaint history found no additional relevant complaints for the final lot, or any other final lot associated with the same sub-assembly lots as the complaint device.The product ifu states ¿the catheter should not be advanced through an area of resistance unless the source of resistance is identified by fluoroscopy and appropriate steps are taken to reduce or remove the obstruction.¿ 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 component failure is unrelated to manufacturing or design deficiencies, contributed to this event.The exact conditions experienced during the event cannot be duplicated, and details of the anatomy are unknown.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.
|