|
Manufacturing site: (b)(4).The caravel 135 cm and 150 cm microcatheters were returned for evaluation.The reported caravel 135 cm microcatheter was missing the distal segment of the tip.Microscopic observation of the broken tip end found circumferential cracks on the tip surface that indicated tensile stress had attributed to the observed tip separation.A scratch probably made by contacting calcium was found on the tip surface proximal to the broken tip end.The distal end of the braid tube was observed on the broken tip end; approximately 2 mm of the tip (composed solely of polymer) was considered missing.The returned caravel 150 cm microcatheter that was used in exchange for the subject microcatheter had its tip slightly deformed associated with normal usage.No other damage was found on the caravel 150 cm.Lot history review revealed no anomaly relating to the reported event.No other similar product experience report was received from this lot.Based on the provided information and investigation outcome, it was presumed that tensile stress generated with catheter manipulation or removal had most likely contributed to the reported tip separation.The applied stress would exceed the product design limit when the tip was being caught and its movement was restricted by the calcified lesion.It was concluded that this event was not attributed to product quality.Instructions for use (ifu) states: [warnings] if any resistance or something abnormal is felt when operating this microcatheter, do not continue the manipulation while the causes are unclear.If it is suspected that this microcatheter is not operating correctly, avoid excessive manipulations, and carefully remove the entire catheter system while paying full attention to avoid complications.(continuing the manipulation while the cause of the problem is not identified may cause damage to this microcatheter and damage the blood vessel.); and, [malfunctions] separation.
|