|
The device was not returned for analysis.Production record and corrective and preventative actions (capa) reviews were performed and revealed no indication of a product quality issue.Additionally, a query of the complaint handling database for the reported lot revealed there is no indication of a lot specific issue.Based on the information received, the investigation determined that the reported material separation, foreign body in patient, surgical intervention, and unexpected medical intervention appears to be related to user error.In this case, it is likely that the material separation, foreign body in patient, surgical intervention, and unexpected medical intervention is the result of use techniques employed or interaction with the nav6 filter.Based on the results of the complaint investigation, there is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.H6: codes 4118, 3233, and 11 no longer apply.
|
|
It was reported that the procedure was performed to treat a lesion in the superficial femoral artery (sfa).A 190cm emboshield nav 6 embolic protection system (eps) was advanced through resistance; however, was noted to fail to deploy the filtration element and during removal resistance was felt and the distal end of the.018 viper wire was noted to separate near the distal end of the 6f sheath after force was applied.After the eps was completely removed an attempt to snare the separated viper wire was made; however, was noted to be unsuccessful.Therefore, the separate piece was surgically removed on the same day.It was unknown how the fracture occurred as the guide wire was fractured by the time force was applied during removal.There were no adverse patient effect nor clinically significant delay.
|