|
As reported, during an angiogram via right femoral access, the tip of a flexor ansel guiding sheath separated in the patient during insertion of the device.The procedure was completed and the patient was reported to be stable.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.
|
|
Summary of event: as reported, during an angiogram via right femoral access, the tip of a flexor ansel guiding sheath separated in the patient during insertion of the device.The procedure was completed, and the patient was reported to be stable.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: a review of the complaint history, device history record, drawing, instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, quality control, specifications, and visual inspection of the complaint device was conducted during the investigation.The physical examination of the returned device confirmed that four pieces of the sheath were returned; however, the proximal end of the sheath and the check-flo valve were not returned.A separated 20.5 cm segment of the sheath's distal end was returned damaged.A 1 cm of elongated coil is exiting the proximal end of segment.A 1.5 cm segment was returned with one coil exiting the end.Another 1 cm segment of tubing was returned with no coil inside.All points of separation of the tubing are rough and jagged.A 2.7 cm segment of coil was also returned.Bio-matter was present throughout the device.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.No related non-conformances were found, and there have been no other reported complaints for this lot number.The complaint file, device history record, complaint history, validations, and manufacturing documents provide evidence to suggest that the device was manufactured to specification.There is no evidence of nonconforming devices from the complaint lot in house or in the field.The product ifu warns the user: "if resistance is encountered during advancement of flexor sheath, assess cause of resistance and consider dilation of any restriction identified or consider alternate treatment strategy.If flexor sheath is advanced through resistance, force to remove the sheath will be higher, increasing the risk of sheath material or hub separation upon withdrawal." the ifu also states: "reinsertion of the dilator prior to removal of flexor sheath increases the strength of the sheath and lessens the risk of device separation.If resistance is anticipated or encountered during withdrawal or flexor sheath, consider carefully reinserting the dilator prior to continuing removal." based on the information provided and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that a definitive cause for this event cannot be determined.A previous capa determined that separation failures in this device type are based upon use of the device, including the ability to advance these devices into restrictive anatomies and failure to reinsert the dilator prior to removal of the device.A capa is currently in place to further investigate this failure mode.The appropriate personnel have been notified and cook will continue to monitor for similar events.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.
|