|
Confirmed supplier related due to a thin spot within the wall thickness of the outer shaft.The sample was evaluated in the engineering lab.Visual inspection was completed of the device upon receipt, and in initial review of the balloon, the balloon hub, wire hub and the y-connector, there was no visible damage found during visual inspection.Upon further inspection, there was visual damage and breakage found on the outer shaft of the catheter.After a visual inspection was completed, a dimensional inspection was performed.The outer shaft of the catheter was inspected both above and below the burst in the shaft.At the distal end of the shaft, below the composite balloon, the outer shaft measured 0.0760¿, and the proximal end below the burst measured at 0.0755¿.The remaining outer shaft was further inspected at various lengths ¿ at the midpoint of the shaft and towards the proximal end of the shaft, the od measured at 0.0760¿.(the specified range is 0.078 ±.002).Even the low spec of 0.0755¿ would be rounded to 0.076¿ due to significant digits as detailed in cqp-001.Therefore, the outer shaft was confirmed to be conforming.The catheter was then dissected, cutting the outer shaft above and below the burst.The id of the outer shaft was confirmed with a 0.061¿ gage pin on both distal and proximal end of the burst.(nominal is 0.062¿).In addition, the wall thickness was measured in four quadrants both on the proximal and distal end of the burst.On the distal end of the burst (closest to the balloon assembly), the four quadrants measured 0.0105¿, 0.0085¿, 0.0095¿ and 0.0095¿.The minimum wall thickness is 0.006¿.Although the distal end of the shaft had two quadrants within the shaft, leaving a thinner section of the wall at 0.0085¿.The proximal end of the shaft was then measured for wall thickness and those measurements at 0.0085¿, 0.0095¿, 0.0088¿ and 0.0095¿.This inspection confirmed that the wall thickness of the shaft was within specification.The remaining portion of the product was re-evaluated due to the burst in the shaft and the wall thickness measured 0.0095¿, 0.0110¿, 0.0089¿ and 0.0095¿ confirming that the wall thickness was met.In addition, the wall thickness of the composite balloons was evaluated and, in both locations, measured, it measured at 0.0039¿ and 0.0065¿.The allowable wall thickness specification for composite balloons is 0.00395¿ ¿ 0.00650¿, therefore the wall thickness was confirmed to be conforming.A review of the complaint dmrs for the composite balloons and the outer shaft was completed.During review, the composite balloon lot 24064314 showed no scrap balloons for the double wall thickness and all inspections for double wall thickness were completed and within specification.It was also confirmed that dmr, all dimensions for the outer shaft were found to be within specification and there were no obvious failures or trends towards the upper or lower limits.In review of the complaint file, there was no documentation of the pressure at which the burst occurred in the field, and there was no further information provided.The labeling is found to be adequate.A review of the device history record did not show any problems or conditions that would have contributed to the reported issue.Based on the results of the investigation, no additional actions can be taken at this time.Corrections: d, e, h.Udi format updated with available product information per gudid.H11: sections a through f - the information provided by bd represents all the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant/reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bd.
|