|
As reported, during a lower extremity angiogram involving a (b)(6) year-old male patient with a history of peripheral artery disease, a cxi support catheter separated at the hub of the device.As the physician was attempting to advance the catheter within the patient and turn it over an unknown wire guide, the hub separated from the catheter.The catheter was removed over the wire in it's entirety.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, drawing, manufacturer¿s instructions, quality control procedures, and specifications of the device were conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was not returned; therefore, no physical examinations could be performed.However, 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 shows no nonconforming events which could contribute to this failure mode.However, the subassembly for the catheter did contain a shaft damage nonconformance.While is nonconformance could potentially be related to the reported failure mode, it should be noted that the affected unit was scrapped and not replaced.It should also be noted there were no other reported complaints for this lot number.Furthermore, reviews of the manufacturer¿s instructions, drawing, and quality control procedures were conducted, and no gaps were discovered.Moreover, an ifu is provided with this device, which states ¿the catheter should not be advanced through an area of resistance unless the source of resistance is identified by fluoroscopy and appropriate steps are taken to reduce or remove the obstruction." based on the information provided and no product returned, investigation has concluded that a root cause for this event could not be established.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.
|