|
Additional information: b5 (event), d10 (concomitant medical products).Investigation/evaluation: a visual inspection and functional testing of the returned device was conducted.A document based investigation was also performed including a review of complaint history, device history record, the instructions for use, manufacturing instructions, and quality control data.Visual examination confirmed the catheter was returned in used condition.The catheter was bent into a curve, likely from the way it was returned.No other visible anomalies were observed on the catheter.A functional test was performed by inflating the balloon with air.The balloon expanded properly indicating the inflation line functioned as intended.The balloon was immediately deflated when the syringe was disconnected from the inflation valve.The balloon was inflated a second time and again the balloon deflated when the syringe was removed from the inflation fitting.Each balloon is leak tested during manufacturing and inspection processes.A review of the device history record found no non-conformances.Because there are no non-conformances, adequate inspection activities have been established, there is objective evidence that the dhr was fully executed, and no other related complaints from the lot have been received from the field, it was concluded that there is no evidence that nonconforming product exists in house or in field.A review of complaint history records shows no other complaints associated with the complaint device lot.The instructions for use (ifu), provides the following information to the user related to the reported failure mode: how supplied "upon removal from the package, inspect the product to ensure no damage has occurred." a review of relevant manufacturing documents was conducted.It was concluded that the device aspect in question was visually/functionally inspected by quality control and no related gaps in production or processing controls were noted.The complaint was confirmed based on customer testimony and examination of the returned device.It was concluded that a definitive cause of the check valve failure could not be determined from the available information.Per the quality engineering risk assessment, no further action is warranted.Cook medical will continue to monitor this device via the complaints database for similar complaints.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.
|