|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unchanged, unknown, or unavailable.Investigation ¿ evaluation it was reported that the coda lp balloon catheter was difficult to advance over a competitor's wire guide during an unknown procedure.The physician determined that delivery would be difficult, so the complaint device was not used.A balloon catheter from another manufacturer was opened to complete the procedure successfully, and a competitor's graft was implanted during the procedure.No calcification was present in the vessels used for introduction of the devices.The patient did not experience any adverse effects or require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.Reviews of documentation including the complaint history, device history record (dhr), instructions for use (ifu), drawings, specifications, and quality control procedures, as well as a visual inspection, functional test, and dimensional verification of the returned device, were conducted during the investigation.No medical imaging was provided; however, one used balloon and an unknown wire guide were received by cook for evaluation.The wire guide (the.035" that was returned with the device) would pass the entire length of the device without issue.Visual examination revealed no damage to the device.The outer diameter of the catheter measured within specification.The lab was unable to replicate the failure.Evidence suggests the device was manufactured to specification.Additionally, a document-based investigation evaluation was performed.A review of the device master record (dmr) concluded that sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.A review of the dhr for the reported complaint device lot revealed one quality control discrepancy for a potentially related issue, in which one device was scrapped.A complaint history search identified no other events reported for this lot number.Based on the available information, cook has concluded that there is no evidence suggesting nonconforming product exists either in house or in the field.Cook also reviewed product labeling.The manufacturer does not apply an ifu for this product.Instructions for use are applied by the local distribution partner.Based on the information provided, inspection of the returned device, and the results of the investigation, a definitive root cause for this event could not be established.The appropriate personnel have been notified.Cook will continue to monitor for similar complaints.Per the risk assessment no further action is required.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.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unavailable, or unchanged.Additional information: b5, d9, d10, 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 or that a death or serious injury occurred; nor is it admission that any cook device caused, contributed to, or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|