| Model Number |
N/A |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Break (1069)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Great Vessel Perforation (2152)
|
| Date of Event |
12/04/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The user facility reported that they had an r2p procedure to treat superficial femoral artery (sfa) disease.The physician went right radial and was able to successfully treat the superficial femoral artery (sfa) disease with a 119cm destination slender sheath.Physician went to remove the sheath over a 035 gwa where resistance was met.Physician continued to pull until the sheath separated and unraveled at the radial access site.A balloon was inserted and inflated multiple times inside and distal of the sheath to help with removal.The sheath continued to unravel.Ir and vascular surgeon were called to surgically remove the sheath.Unfortunately, the patient lost their right radial artery when the distal end of the sheath was removed.After the event the terumo field clinical specialist discussed proper destination slender removal techniques with the physician by reinserting the dilator every time especially when resistance is met.The patient was recovering in the intensive care unit (icu).The estimated blood loss was less than 250cc.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This report is being resubmitted since all of the acknowledgements were not initially received and was noted upon review.Esg help desk was contacted and provided the initial receipt from the inital submission, however they suggested to re-submit the report.A copy of the initial submission receipt is attached in the attachment section.A1: patient identifier: (b)(6).The actual device has not been returned for evaluation.The investigation is currently ongoing.A follow-up report will be submitted once the investigation is complete.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This report is being resubmitted since it had initially failed due to the initial report not receiving all of the acknowledgements when it was initially submitted and received which was not noted until further review.Esg help desk was contacted and provided the initial receipt from the initial submission, and the follow up submission and they suggested to re-submit this report as well as the initial report.A copy of the original initial submission receipt and follow up submission receipt is attached in the attachment section.This report is being sent as follow-up no.1 to update section d9, section h3, and to provide the completed investigation results.The actual device has been returned for evaluation.One r2p sheath assembly was returned for product assessment.The sample was subject to visual analysis.The sheath is separated 60.4cm from the sheath hub.The sheath is stretched, and the coil is unraveling at multiple points along the sheath body.The complaint can be confirmed for sheath separation.The likely root cause is a patient spasm increased resistance during removal and led to sheath separation.The combination of not inserting the dilator for support and lack of vasodilators to alleviate spasm contributed to the separation.Review of device history record (dhr) showed there were no issues noted during manufacture of the product that could have contributed to this complaint condition.Currently no action is recommended since this risk evaluation is within the predetermined limits in the design failure mode and effects analysis (dfmea).
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|