|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown or unavailable.A5: chinese.H3: device evaluation anticipated, but not yet begun.This report includes information known at this time.A follow-up report will be submitted should additional relevant information become available.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.
|
|
As reported, during a transfemoral procedure to treat a lower extremity arterial occlusion via a contralateral approach, a flexor high-flex ansel guiding sheath broke.The target location was the right femoral artery.The access site was not scarred, and the bifurcation angle was normal; however, the patient¿s anatomy was approximately seventy percent stenosed.Another manufacturer¿s wire guide and sheath were used during the procedure.Resistance was not encountered during insertion or removal of the sheath, or during insertion or removal of any device through the sheath.The sheath shaft reportedly separated during delivery of the device via femoral artery puncture.The dilator and a wire guide were in the sheath lumen when the separation occurred.A wire guide was reportedly used to ¿shape the curvature to hook out the broken portion¿ of the sheath.Another device was used to successfully complete the procedure.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 event.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Summary of event: as reported, during a transfemoral procedure to treat a lower extremity arterial occlusion via a contralateral approach, a flexor high-flex ansel guiding sheath broke.The target location was the right femoral artery.The access site was not scarred, and the bifurcation angle was normal; however, the patient¿s anatomy was approximately seventy percent stenosed.Another manufacturer¿s wire guide and sheath were used during the procedure.Resistance was not encountered during insertion or removal of the sheath, or during insertion or removal of any device through the sheath.The sheath shaft reportedly separated during delivery of the device via femoral artery puncture.The dilator and a wire guide were in the sheath lumen when the separation occurred.A wire guide was reportedly used to ¿shape the curvature to hook out the broken portion¿ of the sheath.Another device was used to successfully complete the procedure.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 event.Corrected information: d4 = udi investigation evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record (dhr), and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.A visual inspection of the complaint device was also conducted.The complaint device was returned to cook for investigation.The shaft was separated 33.5-centimeters from the distal tip.The hub was not returned, and the proximal segment of the separated shaft was partially unraveled.The sheath flare was present and out-of-round.A crushed area near the point of separation on the distal segment suggests that an instrument was possibly used to grab the shaft.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 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.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 a component failure, unrelated to design or manufacturing, contributed to this event.It is possible that the stenosed anatomy may have contributed to separation and unraveling of the device; however, this cannot be definitively determined.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.
|