|
As reported, during an unspecified pacemaker implantation procedure, a micropuncture transitionless access set's dilator tip was crushed/torn.The device packaging was not damaged.The dilator was advanced via the left internal jugular vein access site, however, per the reporter, resistance was felt and the calcified anatomy crushed/tore the dilator tip.Another device from an unknown lot was used to insert the sheath.The patient has recovered.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient's body.The patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Corrected information: h6 (annex g) summary of event: as reported, during an unspecified pacemaker implantation procedure, a micropuncture transitionless access set's dilator tip was crushed/torn.The device packaging was not damaged.The dilator was advanced via the left internal jugular vein access site, however, per the reporter, resistance was felt and the calcified anatomy crushed/tore the dilator tip.Another device from an unknown lot was used to insert the sheath.The patient has recovered.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient's body.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), manufacturing instructions, and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.The complainant did not return the complaint device to cook for investigation.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.No related non-conformances were found on the complaint lot or subassembly lots.A review of complaint history found no additional relevant complaints for this lot number.Cook also reviewed the product labeling, including the instructions for use.It states: ¿do not attempt to insert or withdraw the wire guide and/or introducer if resistance is felt.¿ 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, and ifu 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 the patient¿s anatomy caused this incident.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.
|