Manufacturers ref# (b)(4).Summary of investigational findings: a filter was deployed during a filter placement procedure, but the filter legs were wrapped up intertwined and the filter was therefore retrieved (b)(4).A second attempt to implant a new filter during the procedure failed because the filter would not deploy from the sheath at all.The user re-sheathed the filter and the device was then withdrawn from the patient (b)(4) lastly, the user tried with a third attempt, and the filter was implanted successfully.No adverse effects on the patient was reported due to this occurrence.Two devices with missing parts were returned for evaluation.No parts of the returned product were marked with the belonging pr#.The returned parts belonging to this pr (b)(4) were assumed to be a jugular introducer with a protection sheath and celect-pt filter.When the protection sheath was retracted during the evaluation, it was noticed that the filter was already released.The filter was therefore attached to the grasping hook and the sheath was then advanced over the filter.The sheath was retracted again, and the filter was still attached as expected.A kink was observed on the protection sheath and two of the secondary filter legs were found entangled.However, no visual nonconformances were observed on the hook, and all measurements were in accordance to specifications including measurements of the grasping hook, the filter hook and the filter legs.It is not clear how the procedure progressed prior to attempt of deployment, however, the likely cause for the reported event could be to much back tension during release, as ifu states that excessive tension during deployment may prevent the filter from releasing when the release mechanism is activated.Furthermore, it is possible that the two secondary filter legs, which was observed to be entangled during the device failure analysis, got intertwined during the procedure.Ifu warns not to rotate the filter inside the introducer system or inside the vena cava as this may compromise filter performance.Cook was unable to conduct a review of the device history record, as the lot number of the complaint device was not provided for the investigation.However, there are adequate controls in place to ensure the device was manufactured to specifications.Cook medical will continue to monitor for similar events.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.
|