|
Updated fields - b4, d4, d9, g3, g6, h2, h3, h4, h6 (type of investigation, investigation findings, investigation conclusions), h11.A 30cc yamato plus iabc used with a cs300 iabp ruptured on the fourth day after pci support.Alarms sounded repeatedly, and blood was seen in the catheter shaft.The device was replaced with another 30cc balloon from a different manufacturer, and the patient remained unharmed.The balloon had been inserted at another facility via the right femoral artery, where only mild to moderate tortuosity and calcification were present.The rupture occurred while the patient was resting in the icu.Only the catheter and sheath were returned, and details such as the guidewire type, lot number, and serial number are unknown.Physician contact information was not provided since the issue did not occur during the procedure.The product was returned with the membrane completely unfolded and blood on the interior and exterior of the iab and between catheter and sheath.The iab was returned cut at the extracorporeal tubing.The non-maquet sheath was returned covering the catheter tubing.Multiple tiny kinks were observed on the returned sheath near the hub.An underwater leak test of the catheter tubing, inner lumen and extracorporeal tubing was performed and one leak was observed on the membrane 19.8cm from the iab tip and measures 0.005in / 0.013cm long.Conclusion: the reported problems were most likely triggered by three leaks which were found on the membrane.Under magnification, a whitish patch was observed around the leak.This whitish patch is the typical appearance of an abrasion mark which is caused by calcified plaque in the aorta.A lot history record review was completed for the reported product.No nonconformances were found that are considered to be related to the event.The failure mode is addressed in the risk file and is operating within its risk profile.The ifu addresses the reported failure.There were no ncmrs identified which could cause or contribute to the reported failure.The investigation does not indicate that the device was inadvertently released as non-conforming or an adulterated product or was a counterfeit.The complaint history review did not identify an adverse trend (increase in number of complaints over past three (3) months).Based on the rational provided above, no escalation to the capa process is required.
|