Description of Event or Problem · 1
A SIMILAR OCCURRENCE WAS PREVIOUSLY REPORTED TO MEDSUN. TWO MORE EPISODES WITH SAME DEVICES ARE REPORTED BELOW.1. DEVICE WAS DEPLOYED ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER DIRECTIONS, HOWEVER, THE TAMP-TUBE DID NOT DEPLOY DOWNWARD AUTOMATICALLY AS IT SHOULD, TO TAMP THE COLLAGEN TO ARTERIOTOMY. TECH HAD TO "FILET" THE SHEATH TUBE BACK TO EXPOSE THE TAMP-TUBE, AND MANUALLY SLIDE AND TAMP COLLAGEN. TECH WAS ABLE TO AID THE DEVICE TO DEPLOY PROPERLY AS BEFORE.2. UPON USING THE ARTERIAL CLOSURE DEVICE AS PER MANUFACTURER PROTOCOL, THE TAMP TUBE DID NOT DEPLOY AT THE CORRECT TENSION. TECH HAD TO "FILET" THE DELIVERY SHEATH OF DEVICE BACK IN ORDER TO MANUALLY (WITH A HEMOSTAT) PULL DOWN THE TAMP TUBE TO PUSH THE COLLAGEN ONTO THE ARTERIOTOMY. HAVING HAD (AT THIS COUNT) 3 INCIDENCES WITH THE DEVICE NOT DEPLOYING PROPERLY, TECH KNEW WHAT TO DO TO SALVAGE THE DEVICE AND PREVENT HARM TO PATIENT WHO WAS ANTICOAGULATED FOR THE PROCEDURE. TECH WAS ABLE TO SECURE THE PUNCTURE SITE AND NO BLEEDING WAS SEEN.WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENDED PROCEDURE?VASCULAR CLOSURE POST HEART CATH.