|
It was reported, the tip of the cxi support catheter experienced elongation of the distal tip.The approach was gained via the left elbow as the contralateral and ipsilateral approaches were unavailable.The physician attempted to advance the device through the lesion, however the tip of the device became trapped due to severe calcification.At this time, the physician removed the device from the patient and noticed the slightly elongated distal tip.No section of the device remained inside of the patient's body.The cxi support catheter was replaced with another device and the approach was gained from the posterior tibial artery to complete the procedure.The patient did not require any additional procedures nor did the patient experience any adverse effects.It was stated that the patient recovered.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unavailable, or unchanged.Investigation ¿ evaluation.A review of the complaint history, device history record, documentation, drawing, instructions for use(ifu), manufactures instructions, quality control, and specifications of the device was conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was not returned; therefore, no physical examinations could be performed.However, a document based investigation evaluation was performed.There is no evidence to suggest the product was not made to specifications.A review of the device history record revealed a previous complaint (pr191066) with the same failure mode.It should be noted that in both instances, patient anatomy was a major contributing factor.Additionally, an ifu is provided with the device, which states ¿the catheter should not be advanced through an area of resistance unless the source of resistance is identified by fluoroscopy and appropriate steps are taken to reduce or remove the obstruction.Based on the information provided, no product returned and the results of our investigation, a definitive root cause could not be traced to the device, but could possibly lie with the patient¿s anatomy.We will continue monitor complaints for similar events and have notified the appropriate personnel of this event.Per the quality engineering risk assessment no further action is required.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803.This report is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement made in it is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned; that a death or serious injury occurred; or that any cook device caused or contributed to; or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|