| Model Number |
ICRC071137 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Break (1069); Material Separation (1562); Stretched (1601)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
10/01/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
A 71-year-old male patient was treated for an occlusion at the left proximal m2 segment.Access was obtained using a zoom 88 support catheter through a short 8f sheath to the proximal petrous turn.The physician steam shaped the tip of a zoom 71 aspiration catheter before advancing it through the zoom 88 support without a guidewire or microcatheter to the face of the clot.Aspiration was applied with a 60cc vac-lock syringe for approximately 60 seconds.While retracting the zoom 71 through the zoom 88 support, the physician indicated it felt "very smooth" with no resistance noted.As the physician continued to retract the zoom 71 through the zoom 88 support, he noted that the distal end of the zoom 71 was not retracting.Imaging revealed that approximately 15-20 cm of the distal end of the zoom 71 catheter was still in the patient's middle cerebral artery (mca), with the tip terminating at the proximal m2 segment.The zoom 71 separated at the proximal end of the zoom 88 support and was held together by the coil.The separated zoom 71 segment was successfully removed from the patient using a third party microcatheter and snare device.The clot in the m2 segment was removed and the case was completed.The patient was reported stable without any patient sequelae.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The zoom 71 catheter was returned for investigation in three pieces: distal and proximal segments and tangled portion of catheter material.Investigation confirmed the reported shaft break.The investigation found stretching and kinking along both the distal and proximal segments of the broken catheter shaft.Investigation of the distal tip of the zoom 71 confirmed that it was modified and was shaped at an angle.The surface of the shaped section did not appear smooth when compared to an un-shaped zoom 71.Based on the reported complaint information and location of the break compared with the distal tip of zoom 71, it cannot be confirmed that the shaped tip contributed to the complaint.Based on the complaint information and images provided, the exact root cause could not be determined.The most likely cause was retraction of the zoom 71 through a constriction.However, the adjunctive devices were not returned for confirmation.The manufacturing records for the zoom 71 were reviewed and demonstrated that the product met all the design and manufacturing specifications.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|