| Model Number |
VSTK0121 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Nonstandard Device (1420); Material Perforation (2205); Failure to Advance (2524); Difficult to Advance (2920)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
03/12/2026
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The device has not been received for analysis.If there is any further relevant information received, a supplemental medwatch will be filed.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that during a farawave pulmonary vein isolation and posterior wall isolation procedure to treat an atrial fibrillation, a torflex sheath was selected for use.Following transseptal puncture with the rf wire, the physician met significant resistance attempting to cross the septum with the sheath and was unable to successfully cross with sheath and dilator.A new transeptal puncture was attempted at three separate locations, but it continued to be unsuccessful when attempting to cross.It was attempted to dilate transeptal location with non-boston scientific (bsc) catheter, but it was still unsuccessful.Torflex sheath and dilator was exchanged for non-bsc sheath, and upon examining the torflex sheath, the physician noticed the tip of the sheath was split and broken.The septum was successfully crossed with the non-bsc sheath sheath and dilator.The non-bsc sheath was then exchanged for a faradrive sheath and procedure was completed.No patient complications were reported.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
B5: describe event or problem- it was further reported that a versacross steerable sheath was selected for use as opposed to the previously reported toflex was used.The summary is updated and corrected.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that during a farawave pulmonary vein isolation and posterior wall isolation procedure to treat an atrial fibrillation, a torflex sheath was selected for use.Following transseptal puncture with the rf wire, the physician met significant resistance attempting to cross the septum with the sheath and was unable to successfully cross with sheath and dilator.A new transeptal puncture was attempted at three separate locations, but it continued to be unsuccessful when attempting to cross.It was attempted to dilate transeptal location with non-boston scientific (bsc) catheter, but it was still unsuccessful.Torflex sheath and dilator was exchanged for non-bsc sheath, and upon examining the torflex sheath, the physician noticed the tip of the sheath was split and broken.The septum was successfully crossed with the non-bsc sheath sheath and dilator.The non-bsc sheath was then exchanged for a faradrive sheath and procedure was completed.No patient complications were reported.It was further reported that a versacross steerable sheath was selected for use as opposed to the previously reported toflex was used.The tip was inspected prior to use.Sheath insertion into the vasculature was attempted prior to seeing tip damage.An introducer was used.Resistance was encountered during vascular insertion with the sheath.The reported issues was pushing the sheath and dilator across and no issues were the rf wire were noted.The sheath and dilator would not cross the septum.The procedure was completed using a non-bsc sheath sheath and then exchange for a faradrive sheath.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|