|
It was reported, a (b)(6) old male with a history of peripheral artery disease was undergoing a left lower extremity angiogram during which a cxi support catheter was used.The device separated at the first black marker while inside the patient's anatomy.Access was gained via the patient's right groin using a 6french (fr) ansel sheath.The complaint device had been inserted through another manufacturer's 5fr catheter, over another manufacturer's guide wire.No device fragments were left inside the patient's anatomy.The procedure was successfully completed using a.018 cxi support catheter without difficulty.Additional information received from a company representative indicated the patient's anatomy was not very tortuous.The bifurcation was high but otherwise normal.The physician did not state there was resistance while inserting or removing the complaint device.It advanced easily.The company representative was not aware of any excessive force being used during the use of the complaint device.It was removed over the wire by "pin and pull techniques".A power injector was not used.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Investigation ¿ evaluation.A review of the dimensional verification, complaint history, device history record, drawing, instructions for use, manufacturing instructions, quality control, and a visual inspection of the returned device were conducted during the investigation.The visual inspection of the returned device confirmed that the catheter was separated into two segments.From the strain relief, the overall length was 122.7 centimeters, with the point of separation at 27.4 centimeters.A compressed area was observed on the second separated segment, located 2.5 centimeters from the point of separation.No other damage was noted.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 related nonconforming events which could contribute to this failure mode.It should be noted there were no other reported complaints for this lot number.This device is packaged with instructions for use (ifu).Per the ifu: "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." the user did not report resistance in this case.Furthermore, a review of the manufactures instructions, drawings, and quality control procedures was conducted, and no gaps were discovered.Based on the information provided and the examination of the returned product, investigation has concluded that a root cause for this event could not be established.We will continue our monitoring of similar complaints 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 and is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement contained herein is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned, that a death or serious injury occurred, nor that any cook device caused, contributed to, or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|