|
(b)(4).Investigation - evaluation: a review of the complaint history, drawings, device history record, instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, quality control and visual inspection of the returned device was conducted during the investigation.The device is shipped with an instruction for use (ifu) that describes the intended use, specific items are addressed such as: maximum recommended infusion pressure is 1200psi.The catheter should not be advance through an area of resistance unless the source of resistance is identified by fluoroscopy and appropriate steps are taken to reduced or remove the obstruction.The visual inspection of the returned device reported damage at the distal end of the catheter, between the third and fourth marker band.The catheter broke apart at the proximal end of the fourth marker band.The complaint device was returned therefore, an investigation evaluation was performed.There is no evidence to suggest the product was not made to specifications.Review of device history record shows no nonconforming events which could contribute to this failure mode.It should be noted there were no other reported complaints for this lot number.Based on the information provided, and the results of our investigation, it is feasible to suggest the separation was caused by the device experiencing force beyond its design, given the few kinks and how relatively clean the separation appeared.We will continue to monitor for similar complaints.Per the quality engineering risk assessment no further action is required.
|
|
It was reported during a fenestrated zenith procedure the tip broke off the cxi support catheter being used to catheterize the truncus.The doctor managed to pull the tip into the 7fr sheath with the gooseneck, lasso-snare, and withdraw the whole thing from the patient.
|