|
It was reported that during treatment of stenosis of the iliac artery, the hub separated from a flexor raabe guiding sheath while advancing the device into the patient.The access site was the femoral artery without scarring.The patient's anatomy was reportedly, "slight tortuous and calcified".An ipsilateral approached was used.Another manufacturer's wire guide was used through the sheath during the procedure.Resistance was not used felt during insertion or removal of the device or during the removal of any device through the sheath.The hub was not used to pull the device from the patient.The procedure was completed by using another new device.As reported, the patient did not experience any adverse effects or require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.
|
|
Summary of event: it was reported that during treatment of stenosis of the iliac artery, the hub separated from a flexor raabe guiding sheath while advancing the device into the patient.The access site was the femoral artery without scarring.The patient's anatomy was reportedly, "slight tortuous and calcified".An ipsilateral approached was used.Another manufacturer's wire guide was used through the sheath during the procedure.Resistance was not used felt during insertion or removal of the device or during the removal of any device through the sheath.The hub was not used to pull the device from the patient.The procedure was completed by using another new device.As reported, the patient did not experience any adverse effects or require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.Investigation evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record (dhr), drawing, instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.A visual inspection and functional test of the complaint device was also conducted.The complaint device was returned to cook for investigation.The hub was separated from the sheath.No sheath material was left in the hub.The silicone disc was not damaged.The inner diameter of the hub and outer diameter of the sheath measured within specification.The dilator was not damaged.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.The customer followed relevant instructions in the ifu (instructions for use).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 the design or manufacturing of the device, contributed to this event.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.
|