|
H11: section a through f - the information provided by bd represents all of the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant / reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bd.The date of event was not provided by the complainant/reporter, the date reflected in this report is the date bd became aware of the event.The complaint of a microintroducer sheath split is confirmed, but the root cause could not be determined.One 4.5 fr microintroducer sheath was returned for evaluation.An initial visual observation of the returned device showed blood residues throughout the microintroducer.A longitudinal split was observed at the distal end of the sheath.Use deformation was observed at the sheath split area.A microscopic observation revealed the longitudinal split in the sheath to have sharp fracture edges, light blood residues inside the split, and evidence of the sheath fibers between the sheath split.The deformation along the distal end of the sheath split was indented and buckled.The features of the damage suggested that the sheath may have been damaged due to excessive insertion force, an inadequate skin nick, a steep insertion angle, or an abrupt transition between the sheath and dilator; however, without further inspection of a physical sample this could not be conclusively determined.Therefore, the root cause remains unknown.This complaint will be recorded for future trending and monitoring purposes.A sample was not returned for the other reported occurrence; therefore, that occurrence is inconclusive at this time.
|