Catalog Number B1040-040 |
Device Problems
Inflation Problem (1310); Leak/Splash (1354); Torn Material (3024)
|
Patient Problem
No Consequences Or Impact To Patient (2199)
|
Event Date 01/19/2017 |
Event Type
malfunction
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
(b)(4).During processing of this complaint, attempts were made to obtain complete event, patient and device information.(b)(6).The device is expected to be returned for evaluation.It has not yet been received.A follow up report will be submitted with all relevant information.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported that after preparing 4.0mm x 40mm x 80cm armada 35 balloon dilatation catheter (bdc) per the instructions for use, the bdc was advanced to the common femoral artery without issue.Two attempts were made to inflate the device, but it was unable to be inflated at all; a small cut on the proximal shaft near the hub was noted to be the origin of the leak and the cause of the inflation failure.The device was withdrawn from the anatomy without issue.A new armada 35 bdc was used successfully to complete the procedure.The patient is doing well.There were no adverse patient effects and no occurrence of a clinically significant delay.No additional information was provided.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
(b)(4).Evaluation summary: visual and functional inspections were performed on the returned device.The reported leak was confirmed to be due to a cracked hub.A review of the lot history record identified no manufacturing nonconformities issued to the reported lot that would have contributed to this event.Additionally, a review of the complaint history identified no other similar incidents from this lot.The investigation determined the inflation issue and leak were due to the cracked sidearm; however, a cause for the cracks could not be determined.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|
|
Event Description
|
Subsequent to the initial filed medwatch report, the abbott vascular returned goods lab received the device and noted that the leak originated from a crack in the hub, and not in the proximal shaft itself (as originally reported).Additional information received indicated that while it is believed that the correct device was returned, it is unable to be confirmed by the hospital if the leak and crack had originated from the hub itself, instead of the shaft.No additional information was provided.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|