|
It was reported a cantata 2.5 superselective microcatheter was used for a transarterial embolization procedure in an unknown patient.During the procedure, the microcatheter broke into two parts while putting it into the vessel.The physician was required to "use tools" to remove the distal part of the catheter from the vessel.As reported, the patient did not experience any other adverse effects due to this occurrence.
|
|
Investigation ¿ evaluation: a review of the complaint history, device history record, drawing, instructions for use (ifu), quality control, and specifications of the device, as well as a visual inspection, dimensional verification, and supplier investigation, were conducted during the investigation.One device was returned for investigation.Inspection of the returned device noted only a portion of the catheter shaft was returned.The proximal end of the shaft was separated.The proximal hub and strain relief were note returned.The separated end of the shaft appeared crimpled, out of round, and jagged.The distal end of the tubing was not damaged.Approximately 97.4 cm was returned for investigation, which suggests that about 3.6 cm of tubing was not returned.Biomatter was observed along he shaft.Kinks were noted at 42 cm, 45 cm, 58.5 cm, and 88.5 cm from the proximal point of separation.Dimensional analysis of the catheter shaft's outer diameter confirmed that it was within the correct specifications and tolerances.Additionally, a document based investigation evaluation was performed.Proper inspection activities are in place to identify the failure mode prior to distribution.A review of the device history record found no non-conformances related to the reported failure mode.A review of complaint history records shows no other complaints associated with the complaint device lot.There is no evidence to suggest there is nonconforming product in house or out in the field.Since the microcatheter is a supplied component, a supplier investigation was initiated in response to this failure mode.The supplier reviewed the specifications, device history record for the complaint lot, as well as the 10 most recently manufactured lots, for the device.All reviewed lots tensile strengths at the beginning and end of the shifts passed the requirement per cook specifications and iso standards.The supplier concluded that the complaint deficiency was not confirmed.Based on the information provided, the examination of returned product and the results of the investigation, it was concluded that component failure, without manufacturing or design deficiency contributed to the failure mode.The appropriate personnel have been notified.Cook will continue to monitor for similar complaints.Per the quality engineering risk assessment no further action is required.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803 and is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement contained herein is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned, that a death or serious injury occurred, nor that any cook device caused, contributed to, or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|