|
As reported, during an arteriogram of the lower extremity, a flexor ansel guiding sheath separated/¿came apart¿ during advancement.Contralateral access was obtained in the left femoral artery.The anatomy was not stenosed, tortuous, or calcified; the access site was not scarred, and the bifurcation was not steep or calcified.A 0.035-inch, 260-centimeter bentson wire was in the lumen of the sheath when the separation occurred.The dilator was reinserted prior to sheath removal, and the hub was used to pull the sheath from the patient.The sheath was removed manually.A new sheath was opened and used to complete the procedure.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 or unavailable.E3: occupation = supervising materials resource utilization 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.
|
|
Summary of event: as reported, during an arteriogram of the lower extremity, a flexor ansel guiding sheath separated/¿came apart¿ during advancement.Contralateral access was obtained in the left femoral artery.The anatomy was not stenosed, tortuous, or calcified; the access site was not scarred, and the bifurcation was not steep or calcified.A 0.035-inch, 260-centimeter bentson wire was in the lumen of the sheath when the separation occurred.The dilator was reinserted prior to sheath removal, and the hub was used to pull the sheath from the patient.The sheath was removed manually.A new sheath was opened and used to complete the procedure.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.Corrected information: d4 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 sheath was separated at the hub.Sheath material remained in the hub, and the inner coils were exposed at the point of separation.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.A review of the device history record found no relevant non-conformances on the lot or subassembly lots, and a review of complaint history found no additional complaints for this lot number.The product ifu warns ¿if resistance is encountered during advancement of flexor sheath, assess cause of resistance and consider dilation of any restriction identified or consider alternate treatment strategy.If flexor sheath is advanced through resistance, force to remove the sheath will be higher, increasing the risk of sheath material or hub separation upon withdrawal.Reinsertion of dilator prior to removal of flexor sheath increases the strength and lessens the risk of device separation.If resistance is anticipated or encountered during withdrawal of flexor sheath, consider carefully reinserting the dilator prior to continuing removal.¿ 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 a component failure, unrelated to manufacturing deficiencies, contributed to this event.It is unknown if resistance was encountered during use; however, it is possible that if resistance was encountered and enough force was used to remove the device, it could have led to the separation.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.
|