|
It was reported, during a fistulogram with balloon intervention procedure the valves of two performer introducer devices leaked.According to the initial reporter, the complaint devices were placed in the unspecified fistula and a cook "0.035" pta balloon" device was used in conjunction.However, after placement of the devices, "back bleeding," or blood leakage through the valve was observed.It was reported that the blood loss was approximately fifteen (15) cc, not necessitating any additional medical intervention.It was unknown if the patient's anatomy was torturous or calcified.Another device was used to successfully complete the procedure.The patient was fine with no complications.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.
|
|
Investigation evaluation.A review of the dimensional verification, complaint history, device history record, manufactures instructions, quality control, and a functional test & visual inspection of the returned device was conducted during the investigation.The visual inspection of the returned package confirmed that two rycfw-7.0-35-6-rb-cw devices were returned with two dilators.The first device had the dilator inserted through the proximal fitting, the second device did not.There was visible biomatter on both devices.The sheath tubing was occluded with hemostats and water was injected into the side arm to test for leakage.The connector cap was disassembled from the check flo body to measure the height of the cap.There was no visible damage to either of the valves.The first device had significant leakage around the silicone disc.Cap-to-bottom distance was 1.391¿ and there was glue on the threads, not the cap.As for the second device, it also had significant leaking around the silicone disc.Cap-to-bottom distance was 1.388¿.There was glue on the threads, not the cap, and the tip of the dilator was damaged with the material folded.Additionally, 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 showed no nonconforming events which could contribute to this failure mode.It should also be noted the only other complaint associated with this lot number was (b)(4) which was created from (b)(4) to capture the additional failure mode of tip damage for trending.Furthermore, a review of the manufactures instructions and quality control procedures was conducted, and no gaps were discovered.Based on the information provided, the examination of the returned product, and the results of our investigation, a definitive root cause could not be established.We will continue our monitoring of similar complaints and have notified the appropriate personnel of this event.Measures are being conducted to address this failure mode.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.
|