|
Updated fields: b4, g3, g6, h2, h3, h6 (type of investigation, investigation findings and investigation conclusions), h11.Corrected field: d4 (udi).The customer noted that patient-related factors such as age and vascular condition may have contributed to the event.Additional follow up indicated that the service representative was not requested to inspect or service the pump, and no blood back condition within the pump was reported.The device was retained by the customer for potential evaluation.A medical assessment was preformed and it concluded that the event is consistent with an iab membrane perforation, with therapy continuing despite indications of catheter perforation as outlined in the ifu.The resulting difficult catheter removal and vascular injury led to a hematoma and vessel repair; however, excessive force during removal cannot be confirmed as the cause.The reported complications are known risks already documented in the product risk file, and no new hazards were identified; therefore, no further escalation is required.The reported blood and clotting within the balloon and helium lumen are consistent with a potential balloon membrane breach, rupture, or fracture that may have allowed blood ingress into the catheter system.Difficulty during catheter removal and the subsequent hematoma could have been influenced by patient-specific factors, including vascular anatomy, vessel condition, procedural complexity, or tissue trauma associated with catheter placement and removal.Additionally, prolonged dwell time, vascular calcification, resistance encountered during removal, or mechanical stress on the balloon catheter may have contributed to the observed condition.Based on the available information, the exact cause cannot be conclusively determined without device evaluation.No decon or visual inspection performed since product was not returned and could not be evaluated.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).The risk review was performed and no new risks, failure modes, causes or harms were identified.The trend review did not identify any adverse trends.No escalations are required at this time.Based on the rational provided above, no escalation to the capa process is required.
|