|
It was reported, a (b)(6) patient (gender not provided) was undergoing an unspecified peripheral intervention procedure in which an advance 14 lp low profile balloon catheter was being used.After inserting the balloon through a six french raabe sheath, inflation was attempted with the inflation device included with the complaint balloon.The hub of the balloon broke from the catheter, so the balloon was never able to be inflated.The physician felt as if the separation was from a "glued joint".The complaint balloon was removed and another of the same device was used to complete the procedure.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.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unavailable, or unchanged.Investigation ¿ evaluation.Reviews of the 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 ptax4-14-170-2.5-20 was returned for investigation.Minimal biomatter was present on the device, however the balloon was still wrapped as though it was never inflated.The plastic hub was broken from the catheter at the strain relief.A portion of the hub, the most distal segment, was present inside the strain relief.The strain relief was removed from the catheter tubing for further examination.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 manufactures instructions, drawing, and quality control procedures were conducted, and no gaps were discovered.Through these reviews, cook was able to confirm that appropriate controls are in place to address this failure mode.Moreover, an ifu is provided with the device which states, ¿upon removal from package, inspect catheter to ensure no damage has occurred during shipping." based on the information provided and the examination of the returned product, investigation has concluded that a root cause could not be established for this event.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.
|