|
It was reported, a female patient in her sixties with history of a previous stent/graft intervention and common femoral artery (cfa) endarterectomy was undergoing an unspecified procedure using a micropuncture transitionless access set for placement of a larger diameter wire.Access was in the heavily scarred left cfa.The hub came off the outer transition sheath.This occurred after access while removing over it an amplatz wire.Resistance was felt upon insertion and removal.The procedure was completed successfully.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.
|
|
Investigation/evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record, documentation, 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 used introducer was returned from a micropuncture transitionless access set for investigation.There were several kinks along the dilator.The shaft of the cannula was broken off at the hub, and the shaft of the cannula was flattened at several locations.There was also shaft material inside the hub.No additional issues were identified.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.However, a review of the subassembly lot did present some nonconformances which could have potentially contributed to the reported failure.Though these nonconformances are potentially related to this event, it should be noted that the affected units were scrapped and not replaced prior to order completion.It should also be noted there were no other reported complaints for this lot number.Furthermore, reviews of the manufacturer¿s instructions, specifications, and quality control procedures were conducted, and no gaps were discovered.Based on the information provided and the examination of the returned product, investigation has concluded that this event cannot be traced to the device but to the patient¿s condition.Reportedly, the access site was heavily scarred, and resistance was noted both during insertion and removal.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.
|