|
It was originally reported that prior to use for an unknown procedure the user found the wire guide of a performer introducer was bent.The procedure was completed by using another unspecified new device.As reported, the patient did not experience any adverse effects or require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.Upon preliminary evaluation of the returned device on 02dec2024, it was noted that wire guide had unraveled.
|
|
Summary of event: it was originally reported that prior to use for an unknown procedure the user found the wire guide of a performer introducer was bent.The procedure was completed by using another unspecified new device.As reported, the patient did not experience any adverse effects or require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.Upon preliminary evaluation of the returned device on 02dec2024, it was noted that wire guide had unraveled.Investigation evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record (dhr), and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.A visual inspection and dimensional verification of the complaint device was also conducted.The complaint device was returned to cook for investigation.The wire was bent near the tip and unraveled near the proximal solder.The tip of the mandril to the proximal solder measured seven centimeters, which is within specification, indicating that the mandril did not break.Because the coil was loose, the point of failure was likely a break in the distal solder.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.A review of the device history record found two relevant non-conformances on six total devices from a sub-assembly lot; however, all affected product was scrapped.A review of complaint history found no additional complaints for this lot number.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, and investigation of the returned device suggests that there is evidence the device was manufactured to specification.Although two relevant non-conformances were noted on a sub-assembly 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 a component failure contributed to this event.The break in the solder may have occurred during preparation of the device or during shipping either to or from the customer.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.
|