|
A healthcare professional reported that during an endovascular embolization, a 4.5x22mm enterprise vascular reconstruction device (enc452212, 9568619) was impeded in proximal end of an unspecified microcatheter and could not advance any more.The doctor only retracted the stent alone, but the stent was found detached from the delivery wire in y connector.The doctor removed they connector and removed the stent and then switched to a new stent to complete the surgery.The microcatheter was not replaced.There was no patient injury reported.Additional event information received on 28-jul-2025 indicated that they were able to torque the device.There was no evidence of physical material within the device.The microcatheter was a cerenovus product.The microcatheter did not kink/bent.There was no excessive force used with the devices.There was no procedure prolongation/delay due to the event.
|
|
Manufacturer ref#: (b)(4).Information regarding patient weight, height, medical history, race, and ethnicity was not reported.Section h3: the device is available to be returned for evaluation and testing.However, it has not been received to date.If the device returns, a device investigation will be performed.This report is being submitted pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803 (and/or part 4, as applicable).This report may be based on information which has not been investigated or verified prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by cerenovus, or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the product, cerenovus, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial report, a follow-up report will be filed as appropriate.
|
|
Manufacturer ref# (b)(4).Updated sections on this medwatch: b4, d9, g3, g6, h2, h3, h6 and h11.Complaint conclusion: a healthcare professional reported that during an endovascular embolization, a 4.5x22mm enterprise vascular reconstruction device (enc452212, 9568619) was impeded in proximal end of an unspecified microcatheter and could not advance any more.The doctor only retracted the stent alone, but the stent was found detached from the delivery wire in y connector.The doctor removed the y connector and removed the stent and then switched to a new stent to complete the surgery.The microcatheter was not replaced.There was no patient injury reported.Additional event information received on 28-jul-2025 indicated that they were able to torque the device.There was no evidence of physical material within the device.The microcatheter was a cerenovus product.The microcatheter did not kink/bent.There was no excessive force used with the devices.There was no procedure prolongation/delay due to the event.The device was returned to j&j medtech for further evaluation.A non-sterile 4.5mm x 22mm enterprise® vascular reconstruction device was received contained in the decontamination pouch.Upon receiving the device, visual inspection was performed, and the stent was detached from the delivery unit.Microscopic inspection was performed on the stent component.It was observed to be in good condition; there was no structural damage (i.E., no broken struts, no kinks); also, it was noted fully expanded, both ends can be noted as completely flared.The delivery wire was subjected to dimensional analysis and all measurements were found to be within specification, including those specifications that control the attachment and delivery of the stent.Therefore, device failure is not suspected to be a contributing factor.The customer complaint regarding a stent being detached was confirmed since the stent was noted as already separated from the delivery system; based on this condition, the issue regarding a stent being impeded in the proximal end of the concomitant microcatheter cannot be evaluated through functional testing.The stent must be inside the introducer tube to perform the functional analysis.Additionally, none of the returned components present damages that suggest that they were forcibly advanced.With the limited information available, a conclusive cause cannot be determined; however, it is possible that clinical and procedural factors, including device manipulation and operator's technique, may have contributed to the reported failure.At this time, there is no evidence to support that the issue reported in the complaint is a result of a defect inherently related to the device.Lake region medical did review the device history records relative to the manufacturing, inspecting and packaging of the lot 9568619.The history records indicate this product was final inspection tested at lake region medical and was determined to be acceptable.As part of the j&j medtech quality process, all devices are manufactured, inspected, and released to approved specifications.Since there was no evidence to suggest the event was related to a manufacturing or design issue, no capa activity is required.It should be noted that product failure could be caused by multiple factors.The instructions for use (ifu) do contain the following recommendations: ¿ do not partially deploy the stent from the introducer.¿ do not apply undue force if resistance is encountered at any point during stent manipulation.Withdraw the unit and advance a new one.¿ confirm the tip of the delivery wire is entirely within the introducer.Additional complaint information monitoring for potential safety signals is conducted through complaint trending as part of post-market surveillance.As part of the post market surveillance program, information from this complaint is trended to identify statistical signals for consideration of further correction action.Since there was no evidence to suggest the event was related to a manufacturing or design issue, no corrective actions will be taken at this time.A supplemental report will be submitted if new facts arise which materially alter information submitted in a previous mdr report.
|