| Catalog Number |
H787107120085 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Break (1069); Crack (1135)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient (2692); Device Embedded In Tissue or Plaque (3165)
|
| Date of Event |
01/18/2016
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The reported defective device has been returned to the manufacturer and an investigation into the root cause for event is currently in progress.The results of the device evaluation will be sent via a follow up medwatch.(b)(4).
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
As reported (b)(6) 2016, a patient of unknown age and gender presented for an angiographic procedure.During the procedure, when the treating physician was trying to place a sos omni catheter through a sheath and the sos omni snapped in the middle of the shaft.The physician reported that he was in the aorta and might have torqued the catheter a little too hard, thus making it user error, but did say that it was strange.He was able to remove the catheter and reported the patient was not affected.The device was set aside and a new of the same was used to successfully complete the procedure.There was no harm or injury to the patient due to this event.The reported defective disposable device has been returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Returned for evaluation was a 5f soft-vu catheter.A visual review of the device noted that 47 cm from the hub, the catheter is fractured.The shaft appears twisted at the site of the fracture the customer's reported complaint description of soft-vu fracturing is confirmed.A review of the lot history records was performed for the reported packaging and component lots for any deviations related to the reported defect of the complaint.The review confirms that the lots met all material, assembly, and performance specifications.The event description states that excessive torquing may have contributing to the fracture.The evidence presented on the returned sample supports this claim.The root cause is most likely do to user error.A review of the angiodynamics complaint system noted no adverse trends for this complaint type and product family.This type of complaint will continue to be monitored for trends.(b)(4).
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|