|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown or unavailable.E1: phone = (b)(6).Postal = (b)(6).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 an ¿aortic case¿, the hub/valve of a flexor high-flex ansel guiding sheath broke off while flushing the device.A cook ¿1cm¿ 260-centimeter amplatz wire and cook 12-french flexor sheath were also used during the procedure.The access site was not scarred, and the anatomy was not stenosed, tortuous, or calcified.Resistance was not encountered during insertion or removal of the sheath, or during insertion or removal of any device through the sheath.The hub was not used to pull the device from the patient, the dilator was not reinserted prior to sheath removal, and nothing was in the sheath lumen when the hub separated.The device was exchanged, and the procedure was completed successfully.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 an ¿aortic case¿, the hub/valve of a flexor high-flex ansel guiding sheath broke off while flushing the device.A cook ¿1cm¿ 260-centimeter amplatz wire and cook 12-french flexor sheath were also used during the procedure.The access site was not scarred, and the anatomy was not stenosed, tortuous, or calcified.Resistance was not encountered during insertion or removal of the sheath, or during insertion or removal of any device through the sheath.The hub was not used to pull the device from the patient, the dilator was not reinserted prior to sheath removal, and nothing was in the sheath lumen when the hub separated.The device was exchanged, and the procedure was completed successfully.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.Investigation evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record (dhr), instructions for use (ifu), 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 sheath was separated from the hub.The flare had pulled free from the hub, and no sheath material remained in the hub.The sheath had begun to unravel above the flare, exposing the inner sheath coil.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.A review of the device history record and complaint history found no discrepancies or additional complaints on the lot.The product ifu states ¿reinsertion of dilator prior to removal of flexor sheath increases the strength of the sheath and lessens the risk of device separation.If resistance is anticipated or encountered during withdrawal of flexor sheath, consider carefully reinserting the dilator prior to continuing removal.¿ 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, ifu, and investigation of the returned device suggests that there is evidence the device was manufactured to specification.Based on the information provided and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that a component failure, unrelated to manufacturing or design deficiencies, contributed to this event.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.
|