|
As reported, during an unspecified procedure, another manufacturer's wire guide went through a cxi support catheter.The patient's anatomy was calcified, tortuous and stenosed.Both a stiff and standard wire guide were used during the procedure.While trying to cross the occlusion, the cxi was advanced ahead of the wire and kinked.The wire also went through the side of the catheter.The complaint device was removed and replaced with a new catheter.It is unknown if resistance was felt during insertion and/or advancement of the catheter, however, there was difficulty advancing unspecified sheath up and over the bifurcation due to the tortuosity.There was no harm to the patient.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient's body.The patient did not require any additional procedures or experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Summary of event: as reported, during an unspecified procedure, another manufacturer's wire guide went through a cxi support catheter.The patient's anatomy was calcified, tortuous and stenosed.Both a stiff and standard wire guide were used during the procedure.While trying to cross the occlusion, the cxi was advanced ahead of the wire and kinked.The wire also went through the side of the catheter.The complaint device was removed and replaced with a new catheter.It is unknown if resistance was felt during insertion and/or advancement of the catheter, however, there was difficulty advancing unspecified sheath up and over the bifurcation due to the tortuosity.There was no harm to the patient.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient's body.The patient did not require any additional procedures or experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.Investigation evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record (dhr), instructions for use (ifu), and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was not returned to cook for investigation.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.A review of the device history record found no relevant non-conformances on the final or sub-assembly lots.A review of complaint history found no additional complaints for the final or sub-assembly lots.The product ifu cautions ¿the catheter should not be advanced through and area of resistance unless the source of the resistance is identified by fluoroscopy and appropriate steps are taken to reduce or remove the obstruction.¿ 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 ifu suggests that there is evidence the device was manufactured to specification.There is no evidence of non-conforming devices in-house or in the field.Based on the information provided and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that the patient¿s anatomy contributed to this event.It is likely that the anatomy caused the catheter to kink, and as the wire was advanced through the kink, it came out the side of the catheter.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.
|