|
As reported, during thrombolysis via a femoral artery puncture, a flexor raabe guiding sheath's valve leaked while passing an unknown manufacturer's.035'' wire guide through the sheath.Resistance was not felt upon insertion/removal of the wire guide through the sheath.The sheath was removed, and another device was used.The patient did not require treatment for blood loss and the procedure was completed successfully.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 the occurrence.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Summary of event: as reported, during thrombolysis via a femoral artery puncture, a flexor raabe guiding sheath's valve leaked while passing an unknown manufacturer's.035'' wire guide through the sheath.Resistance was not felt upon insertion/removal of the wire guide through the sheath.The sheath was removed, and another device was used.The patient did not require treatment for blood loss and the procedure was completed successfully.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 the occurrence.G1: united states.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.A visual inspection and functional test of the complaint device was also conducted.The complaint device was returned to cook for investigation.The sheath hub leaked when the dilator was not inserted; however, when the dilator was inserted, the sheath hub did not leak.No damage was noted to the silicone disc.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.A review of the device history record found one relevant non-conformance on one device; however, the affected product was scrapped.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.Although one relevant non-conformance was noted on the lot, the 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 a component failure, unrelated to manufacturing or design deficiencies, 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.
|