|
Investigation ¿ evaluation.Reviews of the dimensional verification, complaint history, device history record, drawing, instructions for use (ifu), manufacturer¿s instructions, quality control, specifications, and a visual inspection of the returned device were conducted during the investigation.The visual inspection of the returned package confirmed that one pta4-18-150-7-6 was returned for investigation.Biomatter was present throughout the device.A syringe was returned attached to the balloon port on the hub of the device.Only the most proximal portion of the balloon was present, measuring approximately 0.6cm in length from the proximal bond.The shaft of the balloon was also separated approximately 142cm from the strain relief.The shaft also appeared slightly elongated near the hub.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, quality control procedures, and overall device history file were conducted, and no gaps were discovered.Through these, cook has concluded that there are appropriate controls in place to address this failure mode.Moreover, an ifu is provided with the device, which states ¿under fluoroscopy, advance the balloon to the lesion site.Carefully position the balloon across the lesion using both the distal and proximal radiopaque balloon markers.Note: if resistance is met while advancing the balloon dilation catheter, determine the cause and proceed with caution.Inflate balloon to desired pressure.Adhere to recommended balloon inflation pressures.If balloon pressure is lost and/or balloon rupture occurs, deflate balloon and remove balloon and sheath as a unit." based on the information provided and the examination of the returned product, investigation has concluded that this event could not be traced to the device but instead lies with the patient¿s condition as severe calcification was reported.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.
|