|
(b)(4).One unit of manta, depth locator and dilator were returned for evaluation.Blood particulates were noted on the unit.Unit was decon taminated and inspected.Manta was locked into the sheath.The lever was actuated.The components (collagen, lock and footplate) were not pushed out.Unit was dismantled to expose the button valve.The button valve was slightly displaced and torn.The device lot history record review for lot number mn2401572 manta 14f indicated no non-conformities related to this lot, therefore, supporting the device met material, assembly, and performance specifications before shipment.Case details were reviewed.Following the tavr, a 14f manta was planned for closure.While inserting the bypass tube through the hemostatic valve of the manta sheath, the physician encountered severe resistance attempting to advance the bypass tube into the sheath hub.When resistance was met, buckling, bending, and kinking occurred to the bypass tube, although no structural damage occurred to the lumen of the sheath.The manta device completely came out of the patient while attempting to deploy.The physician replaced the first 14f manta device and sheath with a second 14f manta device and sheath (same model and lot number).While deploying the second manta the physician added 1cm to the measured deployment depth and completed closure.The patient did not experience any harm, or consequence from this event and the outcome post-procedure was fine.A capa was previously opened under teleflex quality system to address this issue.Based on the investigation, the root cause has been determined to be lack of production and process controls that led to a shift in button valve performance.Further investigation related to this event will be initiated if the occurrence rate exceeds the limit as per the capa.The der process will continue to monitor for any similar events.
|