|
It was reported that during an unknown procedure to treat the anterior tibial artery, the sheath included in a micropuncture transition less pedal access set separated at the hub.Access was obtained in the anterior tibial artery via retrograde approach.The physician removed the wire from the access set as well as the inner cannula in order to advance another manufacturer's wire guide.The physician was unable to advance the wire, as the outer cannula from the complaint device was broken at the hub ("connection part").The patient's anatomy was not noted to be scarred, calcified, or tortuous.The patient did not experience blood loss as a result of the event.All pieces have been reported to have been "kept" by the user facility and are available for return.It was reported that the procedure was "not started" and the patient had a surgical bypass.This was the second attempt at performing this intervention, and it was reported that the physician decided that it was "too hard for the patient" to proceed and that the next "logical step" was surgery.It was reported that the complaint device was not a factor in the decision to proceed with a surgical bypass.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.
|
|
Investigation/evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record, documentation, drawing, manufacturer¿s instructions, quality control, specifications, and a functional test & visual inspection of the returned device were conducted during the investigation.The visual inspection of the returned package confirmed that one used coaxial catheter from the complaint device - micropuncture transitionless pedal access set was returned for investigation.The shaft of the outer catheter was twisted near the hub, but not separated.The tip was noted to be damaged.During the functional test, an.018¿ wire guide could pass through both ends of the device including the twisted section and damaged tip.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 there were no other reported complaints for this lot number.Furthermore, reviews of the manufacturer¿s instructions, drawings, and quality control procedures were conducted, and no gaps were discovered.Moreover, the labeling provided with this device was reviewed, and this specific failure mode is not directly addressed.Based on the information provided and the examination of the returned product, investigation has concluded that this event was caused by the patient condition has the damage and twisted tip of the device is likely an indication of difficult advancement into the vessel.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.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.
|