• Decrease font size
  • Return font size to normal
  • Increase font size
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: PENUMBRA, INC. PENUMBRA SYSTEM RED 68 REPERFUSION CATHETER; NRY

  • Print
  • Share
  • E-mail
-
Super Search Devices@FDA
510(k) | DeNovo | Registration & Listing | Adverse Events | Recalls | PMA | HDE | Classification | Standards
CFR Title 21 | Radiation-Emitting Products | X-Ray Assembler | Medsun Reports | CLIA | TPLC
 

PENUMBRA, INC. PENUMBRA SYSTEM RED 68 REPERFUSION CATHETER; NRY Back to Search Results
Catalog Number RED68
Medical Device Problem Codes Fracture (1260); Physical Resistance/Sticking (4012)
Health Effect - Clinical Code No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
Date of Event 06/11/2024
Type of Reportable Event Malfunction
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
The device has been returned and the investigation results are pending.A follow up mdr will be submitted upon completion of the device investigation.This report is associated with mfr report number: 1.3005168196-2024-00239.
 
Event or Problem Description
The patient was undergoing a thrombectomy procedure in the left internal carotid artery (ica) terminus using a penumbra system red 68 reperfusion catheter (red68), a penumbra system 3max reperfusion catheter (3maxc), a non-penumbra sheath, a stent retriever, and a guidewire.It was noted that the patient's anatomy was tortuous.During the procedure, the physician completed passes in the target location using the red68 and 3maxc.The physician then re-advanced the red68 and 3maxc to the clot and attempted to advance the stent retriever through the red68.It was reported that resistance was encountered when placing the red68 and stent retriever due to the patient¿s anatomy, causing the physician to use additional force.After several attempts to advance the stent retriever, the physician decided to remove it with the red68 and 3maxc and again experienced resistance.Upon removal, it was noted that both the red68 and the 3maxc fractured into two pieces approximately five centimeters from the proximal end.Therefore, the red68 and the 3maxc were not used for the remainder of the procedure.The procedure was completed using a non-penumbra aspiration catheter and the same sheath.There was no report of an adverse effect to the patient.
 
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
Evaluation of the returned red68 confirmed a fracture on the proximal shaft.If the red68 is manipulated against resistance, damage such as a kink and subsequent fracture may occur.The reported patient¿s tortuous anatomy likely contributed to resistance during retraction.Penumbra catheters are inspected during in-process inspection and during quality inspection after manufacturing.The manufacturing records for this lot were reviewed and did not reveal any outstanding discrepancies, design, or quality concerns.This report is associated with mfr report number: 1.3005168196-2024-00239.H3 other text : placeholder.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
PENUMBRA SYSTEM RED 68 REPERFUSION CATHETER
Common Device Name
NRY
Manufacturer (Section D)
PENUMBRA, INC.
one penumbra place
alameda CA 94502
Manufacturer Contact
veronica farris
one penumbra place
alameda, CA 94502
5107483200
MDR Report Key19696754
Report Number3005168196-2024-00238
Device Sequence Number18144831
Product Code NRY
UDI-Device Identifier00815948024090
UDI-Public00815948024090
Combination Product (Y/N)N
Initial Reporter CountryGM
PMA/510(K) Number
K211411
Number of Events Summarized1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Reporter Type Manufacturer
Report Source Foreign,Health Professional,Company Representative
Initial Reporter Occupation Physician
Type of Report Initial,Followup
Report Date (Section B) 08/05/2024
Report Date (Section F) 01/01/2005
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Is this an Adverse Event Report? No
Is this a Product Problem Report? Yes
Operator of Device Health Professional
Device Catalogue NumberRED68
Device Lot NumberH00004031
Was Device Available for Evaluation? Device Returned to Manufacturer
Date Returned to Manufacturer07/03/2024
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? Yes
Was the Report Sent to FDA? Yes
Date Report to Manufacturer01/10/2005
Type of Report(Section G)Thirty-Day
Initial Date Received by Manufacturer 06/11/2024
Supplement Date Received by Manufacturer07/09/2024
Initial Report FDA Received Date07/08/2024
Supplement Report FDA Received Date08/05/2024
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? (Y/N) Yes
Date Device Manufactured11/15/2023
Is the Device Labeled for Single Use? (Y/N) Yes
Is This a Single-Use Device that was
Reprocessed and Reused on a Patient? (Y/N)
No
Usage of Device Initial
Patient Sequence Number1
Patient SexFemale
Date Report Sent to FDA01/01/2005
-
-