|
As reported, at the end of an arteriogram involving a patient of unknown age and gender, a flexor high-flex ansel guiding sheath uncoiled and the shaft separated into two sections.This occurred as the device was being pulled back over the bifurcation upon removal of the device from the groin.The two sections were attached by the coil and were able to be removed with the rest of the device over an unknown wire.The dilator was not inserted upon removal or at the time of separation.The procedure had already been completed with the complaint device prior to the event and the patient was reportedly "fine".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, instructions for use (ifu), manufacturer¿s instructions, specifications, quality control procedures, as well as dimensional verification and a visual inspection of the returned device were conducted during the investigation.The visual inspection of the returned package confirmed that one used kcfw-6.0-35-55-rb-hfanl1-hc separated into two segments attached with coiling was returned for investigation.There was minimal biomatter due to the decontamination.The proximal tubing segment measured 45.5cm from the distal end of the proximal hub.There was 7.5cm of exposed coiling exiting the separation site.A kink was noted in the tubing at 28.3cm.The coiling inside the tubing was elongated.The distal segment measured 8.2cm and included the distal tip with tubing liner noted at the separation site.The distal tip was present with the radiopaque band intact.The noted separation occurred at the bond site between the light blue shaft tubing and the dark blue distal tip tubing.The dilator was not returned for investigation.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 did reveal a nonconformance for leakage.Though this nonconformance has the potential to be related, it should be noted that the affected units were scrapped 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, drawings, specifications, and quality control procedures were conducted, and no gaps were discovered.Moreover, an ifu is provided with the device, which warns to reinsert the dilator prior to removal.Investigation has identified that this is not always performed.Based on the information provided and the examination of the returned product, investigation has concluded that this event could be traced to the user and unintended use error.Reportedly, the customer removed the sheath over the wire and failed to reinsert the dilator prior to removal per the ifu.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.
|