|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unavailable, or unchanged.Investigation ¿ evaluation.Reviews of the dimensional verification, complaint history, device history record, documentation, drawing, instructions for use (ifu), quality control, and a visual inspection of the returned device were conducted during the investigation.The visual inspection of the returned package conformed that the complaint device was returned in two separate pieces.An unknown wire guide extended out either end of the distal piece.The proximal portion of the shaft was consistently narrow until a small portion of the shaft was accordioned.The narrow portion was believed to be the inner shaft material.No damage was visualized on the proximal portion of the device, outside the point of separation.An axial view at the point of separation showed only one lumen.Therefore, the inner and outer shaft separated in two different areas of the device.The proximal end of the wire lumen could be seen within the hub, this suggested that the adhesive used in the proximal glue was adequately placed.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 drawings and quality control procedures were conducted, and no gaps were discovered.Moreover, the product labeling was reviewed and the values and indications on the box packaging was determined to be accurate and descriptive of the device.The instructions for use, included in each product, was assessed.It is noted that the device is indicated for percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (pta) of lesions in peripheral arteries; including internal pudendal, iliac, renal, popliteal, infrapopliteal, femoral, iliofemoral, anterior tibial, peroneal, pedal, radial, brachial, and ulnar; and obstructive lesions of native or synthetic arteriovenous dialysis fistulae.The ifu specifically calls out that it is not intended for coronary arteries.Then goes on to say if resistance is felt during withdraw, negative pressure should be applied to the balloon.If resistance continues, it should be removed with the sheath as a unit.Negative pressure is believed to be applied, however, the sheath and balloon catheter were not removed together as a unit.There is no evidence that the device was manufactured incorrectly and there is no evidence that the materials used were inadequate.Although it is believed that negative pressure was applied to the device, the sheath and balloon catheter were not removed together, as specified in the instructions for use.The shaft separation was determined to be the result of the customer not removing the balloon catheter and sheath together after resistance was felt.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.
|