|
Correction: b2, h6 (annex e, annex f).Additional information: b5, d4, d9, d10.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.This report is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement made in it is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned; that a death or serious injury occurred; or that any cook device caused or contributed to; or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|
|
Additional information was provided.The procedure was a fistulogram of a left brachiocephalic fistula.The patient had an aneurysmal and tortuous cephalic vein but no identifiable stenosis/occlusion.Access was obtained through a competitor's 4f sheath in the upper arm cephalic vein.The catheter was introduced via a 0.35 soft, angle tipped, glidewire.The procedure was converted to an open operation and venotomy to retrieve the separated device.The patient also required prolonged hospitalization due to the event.
|
|
Correction: h6 (annex f and annex g).Investigation / evaluation: as reported, a torcon nb advantage van schie beacon tip seeking catheter separated during a fistulagram of a left brachiocephalic fistula.Access was obtained with a 4-french abbott sheath in the upper arm/cephalic vein, and the complaint device was advanced over a 0.035-inch soft, angled-tip wire, through the 4-french sheath.The cephalic vein was reportedly aneurysmal and tortuous; however, stenosis and occlusion were not identified.The catheter, which was reportedly used only briefly, was advanced through the tortuous anatomy by two users.While trying to access the target area, the beacon tip separated at the junction between the tip and the rest of the catheter.An open cut-down/venotomy was performed to retrieve the separated fragment, and hospitalization was reportedly prolonged.No other adverse effects were reported, and the patient is reportedly ¿well¿.Reviews of the complaint history, device history record (dhr), quality control procedures, and instructions for use (ifu), as well as a visual inspection and dimensional verification of the returned device, were conducted during the investigation.One used catheter was returned to cook for evaluation.Upon visual inspection, it was confirmed that the black tip was completely separated from the blue shaft in what appears to be a clean break.There was evidence that the bond site of the tip to the body of the catheter was not manufactured to specification.Dimensional verification confirmed the catheter was 65 cm in length.Cook has concluded that the device was manufactured out of specification.Additionally, a document-based investigation evaluation was performed.A review of the device master record (dmr) concluded that sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.A review of the dhrs for the reported complaint device lot and the related subassembly lots revealed one related non-conformance in which one device was scrapped.A complaint history search did not identify any other events associated with the reported device lot.Based on the available information, cook has concluded that there is no evidence suggesting nonconforming product exists either in house or in the field.Cook also reviewed product labeling.The ifu [ t_hnb_rev2] supplied with the device states the following in consideration of the reported failure mode: ¿if resistance is encountered during manipulation, stop and determine the cause before proceeding any further.¿ the ifu also states ¿under fluoroscopic guidance, advance the catheter over an appropriately sized wire guide or through an appropriately sized sheath introducer to the intended location.Note: if resistance is encountered during manipulation, stop and determine the cause before proceeding any further.¿ based on the available information, inspection of the returned device, and the results of the investigation, cook concluded that a manufacturing deficiency likely caused this incident.The appropriate personnel have been notified.Cook will continue to monitor for similar complaints.Per the risk assessment no further action is required.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.
|