|
As reported, during an interventional procedure involving the right superficial femoral artery (rsfa), an advance 18 lp low profile balloon catheter¿s balloon ruptured upon the first inflation.The complaint device was used after an atherectomy was performed, using another manufacturer¿s device, within the ninety-percent occluded lesion in the rsfa.The anatomy was reportedly calcified.An unspecified 5-french sheath and other manufacturer's wire were used, and an unknown inflation device was used to inflate the balloon one time, to six atmospheres, at which point the balloon ruptured.The balloon was not inflated within a stent, and blood was not noted in the inflation device.A new balloon was opened to continue the procedure.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures or experience any adverse effects due to this event.
|
|
Summary of event: as reported, during an interventional procedure involving the right superficial femoral artery (rsfa), an advance 18 lp low profile balloon catheter¿s balloon ruptured upon the first inflation.The complaint device was used after an atherectomy was performed, using another manufacturer¿s device, within the ninety-percent occluded lesion in the rsfa.The anatomy was reportedly calcified.An unspecified 5-french sheath and other manufacturer's wire were used, and an unknown inflation device was used to inflate the balloon one time, to six atmospheres, at which point the balloon ruptured.The balloon was not inflated within a stent, and blood was not noted in the inflation device.A new balloon was opened to continue the procedure.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures or experience any adverse effects due to this event.Investigation evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record (dhr), drawing, instructions for use (ifu), 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.A pin hole was noted in the balloon, at approximately nine centimeters from the distal tip of the catheter.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.A review of the device history record found one relevant non-conformance on nine devices; however, all affected product was scrapped.A review of complaint history found no additional complaints for this lot number.The product ifu states ¿under fluoroscopy, advance the balloon to the lesion site.Carefully position the balloon across the lesion using both the distal and proximal radiopaque balloon markers.¿ the ifu also notes ¿note: if resistance is met while advancing the balloon dilatation catheter, determine the cause and proceed with caution.¿ 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.Although one relevant non-conformance was noted on the lot, all non-conforming product was scrapped, there are 100% inspections in place to capture this non-conformance, adequate inspection activities have been established, there is objective evidence that the dhr was fully executed, and no other lot-related complaints have been received from the field.Therefore, it was concluded that there is no evidence that additional non-conforming product exists 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 contributed to this event, as the anatomy was calcified, and the balloon ruptured within a ninety-percent occluded lesion.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.
|