WARNING LETTER
Datascope Corp.
MARCS-CMS 573566 —
February 06, 2019
Product:
Medical Devices
Recipient:
Recipient Name
Mr. Philip Freed
Recipient Title
Managing Director
Datascope Corp.
1300 Macarthur Blvd.
Mahwah
,
NJ
07430
United States
Issuing Office:
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
United States
WARNING LETTER
CMS # 573566
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
February 6, 2019
Mr. Philip Freed
Managing Director
Datascope Corporation
1300 Macarthur Blvd.
Mahwah, NJ 07430
Philip.Freed@getinge.com
Dear Mr. Freed:
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted an inspection of your firm’s medical device operations at 1300 Macarthur Blvd., Mahwah, NJ, from July 30, 2018 through October 3, 2018. During the inspection, FDA investigators determined that your firm is a of intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs) and Cardiosave IAB pumps (Hybrid and Rescue devices). Under section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), 21 U.S.C. § 321(h), these products are devices because they are intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or to affect the structure or any function of the body.
This inspection revealed that these devices are adulterated within the meaning of section 501(h) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 351(h), in that the methods used in, or the facilities or controls used for, their manufacture, packing, storage, or installation are not in conformity with the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the Quality System regulation found at Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 820. We received response, dated October 25, 2018, from you concerning our investigators observations noted on the Form FDA 483, List of Inspectional Observations (FDA 483) that was issued on October 3, 2018. We address the response below, in relation to each of the noted violations. These violations include, but are not limited to, the following:
1.    Failure to perform design validation to include testing of production units under actual or simulated use conditions to ensure that devices conform to defined user needs and intended uses, as required by 21 CFR 820.30(g). Specifically, no design validation was performed under Change Notices 156251 (dated 1/26/18) and 163569 (dated 3/27/18) for the installation of the top protection cover during production and for the assembly at your vendor sites to demonstrate this change meets user needs and intended use.  For example,
Your firm failed to develop a suitable test method for the Cardiosave to demonstrate the assembly of the new top cover protects against saline ingress in order to ensure only safe and effective devices are produced. Specifically, your verification by test (protocol -01432 revision A) required a saline spill to occur at the “
(b)(4)
” and the amount of fluid spilled on the system will be
(b)(4)
.” However, your firm then received a complaint (176399) on 8/13/18 after you completed your spill test  (top cover was installed prior to incident) concerning a saline spill occurring when the Cardiosave was being used as a hybrid, inside the hospital cart, resulting in “crystallized saline” being found inside the unit which resulted in the replacement of the power slot interface; and,  the top cover stopped saline solution from getting into the Cardiosave on the top but fluid then “flowed down the unit from the PIM down under the batteries, where it got under the power slot interface board”.
Your firm also failed to show the Cardiosave devices passed the appropriate dielectric strength, leakage current tests, and whether it showed no signs of wetting of uninsulated electrical parts that could result in the loss of basic safety or essential performance in normal condition.
Your response is not adequate and does not address the above violation. Specifically, your firm failed to evaluate the user needs and intend use to mitigate the potential hazards that could be introduced from the design change described above under item one.   Your response also  did not provide any documentation to show your Cardiosave device passed the appropriate dielectric strength and leakage current tests and whether no signs of wetting of uninsulated electrical parts or electrical insulation of parts could result in the loss of basic safety or essential performance in normal condition or in combination with a single fault condition as required by the standard (EN 606011-1:2006+A12:2014, Medical electrical equipment-Part 1: General requirements for basic safety and essential performance, section 11.6.3 Spillage on ME EQUIPMENT and ME SYSTEMS) after the top cover was installed to prevent ingress of liquid.
2.    Failure to establish and maintain procedures for implementing corrective and preventive action, as required by 21 CFR 820.100(a). Specifically, CAPA procedure 01-028, Revision AE states under sections 6.6.3.3 and 6.6.2.3.1 respectively that “
(b)(4)
” and “
(b)(4)
”.  In addition, section 6.6.3.4 also states “
(b)(4)
”. Furthermore, section 6.64 (Phase 1V-Effectiveness Verification) states “
(b)(4)
.” Your firm has failed to identify all the actions needed to correct and prevent recurrence of nonconforming product and other quality problems. For example:
A)    Supplier Corrective Action Request (17-M-SCAR-209, dated 8/1/17) from a supplier,
(b)(4)
, does not meet your firm’s specifications where all automated processes must be validated. The suppliers welding process performed at
(b)(4)
has not been validated, supplier was not aware that the welding process required validation, the supplier does not validate all machinery prior to processing each job. No verification of effectiveness of the firm’s corrective action was performed.
B)    Your firm failed to verify if the corrective actions implemented by your firm were effective. Specifically, CAPA Request form CRF-MAH-2017-009 (dated 6/6/17) was opened to address batteries failing to meet the minimum run time of
(b)(4)
in the CS100, CS100i and CS300 Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps. The Evaluation section of the CAPA states that there were
(b)(4)
occurrences (complaints) of batteries lasting less than
(b)(4)
,
(b)(4)
for low battery alarm and
(b)(4)
for the unit shutting down without warning.
The immediate Correction/Containment section states that software enhancements designed to keep track and warn users of maintenance intervals and battery status were being released via CN 138938. It also states that operating instructions were being updated via CN 129070 and CN 138881to include new warning and alarm messages included in the software updates. The CAPA decision section indicates that no CAPA was initiated with the rationale that new software and instructions for use were being released via CNs 138938, 129070, and 138881 to prevent short battery run time failures and that no CAPA was required. The CAPA Request Form was then closed on 8/4/2017.
Your response is not adequate and does not address the above violation. Specifically, your firm stated item A above is a document issue (procedural) rather than a supplier issue where they provide products that don’t meet your specifications. Your firm’s effectiveness checks will be performed later and no evidence was provided that you will choose suppliers that will be able to meet your specifications. In addition, your firm’s response to item B above appears to identify this deficiency as a procedural issue rather than taking corrective actions under your CAPA subsystem by verifying the effectiveness of your new software and instructions for use being released via CNs 138938, 129070, and 138881 to prevent short battery run time failures.
3.    Failure to evaluate and select potential suppliers, contractors, and consultants on the basis of their ability to meet specified requirements, including quality requirements, as required by 21 CFR 820.50(a)(1). Specifically, the Supplier Management, Approved Supplier List Criteria and Maintenance procedure, 000204-0005, Rev. AM, states in the Categories and Requirements section that a quality agreement, audit, terms and conditions, and code of conduct are required for High ASL Risk Level suppliers. There was no documentation showing that all requirements for High ASL risk level were completed prior to adding high risk suppliers to the approved supplier list. For example:
A)    Supplier
(b)(4)
, Supplier Code
(b)(4)
, was approved as a High ASL Risk Level supplier of
(b)(4)
on 3/20/2017. The supplier audit was not completed until 4/18/2017. The Supplier Quality Agreement was not completed until 3/14/2018.
B)    Supplier
(b)(4)
, Supplier Code
(b)(4)
, was approved as a High ASL Risk Level supplier of
(b)(4)
on 2/10/2017.The supplier audit was not completed until 6/12/2018. The Supplier Quality Agreement was not completed until 5/24/2018.
C)    Supplier
(b)(4)
, Supplier Code
(b)(4)
, was approved as a High ASL Risk Level supplier of
(b)(4)
on 2/10/2017. No supplier audit was completed. The Supplier Quality Agreement was not completed until 3/6/2018.
D)    Supplier
(b)(4)
, Supplier Code
(b)(4)
, was approved as a High ASL Risk Level supplier of
(b)(4)
on 3/31/2017. The supplier audit was not completed until 8/2/2018. The Code of Conduct was not agreed to by the supplier.
E)     Supplier
(b)(4)
, Supplier Code
(b)(4)
was approved as a High ASL Risk Level supplier of
(b)(4)
on 3/31/2017. The supplier audit was not completed until 6/11/2018.
F)     Supplier
(b)(4)
, Supplier Code
(b)(4)
, was approved as a High ASL Risk Level supplier of
(b)(4)
, on 2/10/2017. The supplier audit was not completed until 6/21/2018.
G)    Supplier
(b)(4)
, Supplier Code
(b)(4)
, was approved as a High ASL Risk Level supplier of
(b)(4)
on 3/31/2017. No supplier audit was completed. The Supplier Quality Agreement was not completed until 5/29/2018.
Your response is not adequate and does not address the above violation. Specifically, your firm limited your investigation to just the seven suppliers without determining if additional suppliers were made acceptable and were unable to meet your specified requirements.
Your firm should take prompt action to correct the violations addressed in this letter.  Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory action being initiated by the FDA without further notice.  These actions include, but are not limited to, seizure, injunction, and civil money penalties.  Also, federal agencies may be advised of the issuance of Warning Letters about devices so that they may take this information into account when considering the award of contracts. Additionally, premarket approval applications for Class III devices to which the Quality System regulation violations are reasonably related will not be approved until the violations have been corrected.  Requests for Certificates to Foreign Governments will not be granted until the violations related to the subject devices have been corrected.
Please notify this office in writing within fifteen business days from the date you receive this letter of the specific steps your firm has taken to correct the noted violations, as well as an explanation of how your firm plans to prevent these violations, or similar violations, from occurring again.  Include documentation of the corrections and/or corrective actions (which must address systemic problems) that your firm has taken.  If your firm’s planned corrections and/or corrective actions will occur over time, please include a timetable for implementation of those activities.  If corrections and/or corrective actions cannot be completed within fifteen business days, state the reason for the delay and the time within which these activities will be completed. Your firm’s response should be comprehensive and address all violations included in this Warning Letter.
We propose a Regulatory Meeting to discuss this recent inspection. At this meeting, you should be prepared to discuss the status of your proposed corrections. Please contact our office to schedule a convenient date and time.
If you have questions regarding any issues in this letter, please contact Compliance Officer, Robert J Maffei at 973-331-4906 or at Robert.Maffei@fda.hhs.gov. Please send your reply electronically to Gina Brackett, Director of Compliance Branch, at
Gina.Brackett@fda.hhs.gov
.
Finally, you should know that this letter is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of the violations at your firm’s facility.  It is your firm’s responsibility to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations administered by FDA.  The specific violations noted in this letter and in the Inspectional Observations, FDA 483, issued at the close of the inspection may be symptomatic of serious problems in your firm’s manufacturing and quality management systems.  Your firm should investigate and determine the causes of the violations, and take prompt actions to correct the violations and bring the products into compliance.
Sincerely,
/S/
Joseph Matrisciano, Jr.
Program Division Director
Office of Medical Device and Radiological Health
Division
Cc. Mr. Mattias Perjos
President and CEO
Getinge
Mattias.Perjos@getinge.com
Content current as of:
02/19/2019
Regulated Product(s)
Medical Devices