Skip to content

Azur CX Detachable 45-780516Recalls & reported problems

Microvention, Inc. · Azur · Class 2 · Implant

All models of Azur CX Detachable (22)

Data updated Oct 18, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy

Adverse event reports
9
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
2
Recalls naming it
0

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 9 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 00810170018305), received between Sep 21, 2018 and May 11, 2026 — classified as 2 injuries, 7 malfunctions.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Detachment of Device or Device Component” (6 reports).

Reports come from manufacturers, hospitals and patients and are not verified by the FDA. A report does not prove the device caused the event, and counts can't be used to compare devices or estimate failure rates. What reports can and can't tell you · How this data works · Data updated Oct 18, 2026.

Reports received per month

Nov 2023: 0 reportsDec 2023: 0 reportsJan 2024: 1 reportsFeb 2024: 0 reportsMar 2024: 0 reportsApr 2024: 0 reportsMay 2024: 0 reportsJun 2024: 0 reportsJul 2024: 0 reportsAug 2024: 0 reportsSep 2024: 0 reportsOct 2024: 0 reportsNov 2024: 0 reportsDec 2024: 0 reportsJan 2025: 0 reportsFeb 2025: 0 reportsMar 2025: 0 reportsApr 2025: 0 reportsMay 2025: 0 reportsJun 2025: 1 reportsJul 2025: 0 reportsAug 2025: 0 reportsSep 2025: 0 reportsOct 2025: 0 reportsNov 2025: 0 reportsDec 2025: 0 reportsJan 2026: 0 reportsFeb 2026: 0 reportsMar 2026: 0 reportsApr 2026: 0 reportsMay 2026: 1 reportsJun 2026: 0 reportsJul 2026: 0 reportsAug 2026: 0 reportsSep 2026: 0 reportsOct 2026: 0 reports2024202520261
Last 36 months. The most recent month may be incomplete.

Most reported problems

Device problems

  • Detachment of Device or Device Component6
  • Premature Separation3
  • Device-Device Incompatibility1
  • Difficult or Delayed Positioning1
  • Difficult to Remove1
  • Inadequacy of Device Shape and/or Size1
  • Physical Resistance/Sticking1

Patient problems

  • No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions6
  • No Consequences Or Impact To Patient2
  • Vascular System (Circulation), Impaired1

Recent adverse event reports

The 9 most recent of 9 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • MalfunctionMay 11, 2026Physical Resistance/Sticking; Premature Separation

    AS REPORTED, THE AZUR CX 18 DETACHABLE COIL FELT SMOOTH WHEN PUSHED UP TO TIP OF THE PROGREAT MICRO CATHETER BUT COULD NOT PUSH IT FURTHER DESPITE USING A NEW PROGREAT MICRO CATHETER. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED INDICATED: TIP OF THE AZUR CX 18 DETACHABLE COIL WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE TIP OF THE PROGREAT MICRO CATHETER HOWEVER, THIS DETACHED FROM DELIVERY WIRE AND THE USER WAS ABLE TO FLUSH IT INTO THE ANEURYSM WITH NO ISSUE. THERE WAS A TIGHT CO-ILIAC TRUNK STENOSIS TO GET THROUGH BEFORE GOING INTO THE GDA. IT WAS INDICATED THAT THIS MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED. THERE WAS NO ISSUE FOR THE PATIENT AND THE COIL REMAINS IMPLANTED.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 25143905 ↗
  • MalfunctionJun 24, 2025Premature Separation; Premature Separation

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A HEMORRHOID EMBOLIZATION PROCEDURE, A EMBOLIZATION COIL IMPLANT DETACHED UNEXPECTEDLY WHEN IT ENCOUNTERED RESISTANCE. IT WAS REPORTED THAT THIS WAS PROBABLY DUE TO OVERSIZING, AND OCCURRED WHEN COILING IN A 90° ARTERY ANGLE. AFTER THE PREMATURE RELEASE, THE STILL MANAGED TO PUSH OUT THE REST OF THE COIL, WHICH REMAINED IN THE CATHETER, WITH HIS GT GUIDE, WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCES FOR THE PATIENT.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 22325118 ↗
  • MalfunctionJan 24, 2024Premature Separation; Premature Separation

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A GASTRODUODENAL (GDA) EMBOLIZATION COILING, THE PHYSICIAN ATTEMPTED TO IMPLANT THE COIL; HOWEVER, THE COIL BROKE FROM THE PUSHER WIRE AS THE PHYSICIAN WAS RETRACTING THE COIL INTO THE MICROCATHETER. THE COIL WAS CONTAINED WITHIN THE MICROCATHETER, AND THE PHYSICIAN WAS ABLE TO SAFELY REMOVE THE COIL IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHIN THE MICROCATHETER. THE GDA WAS SUCCESSFULLY EMBOLIZED, AND THE PATIENT WAS REPORTED TO BE STABLE.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 18568330 ↗
  • MalfunctionDec 25, 2021Detachment of Device or Device Component; Detachment of Device or Device Component

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT AN EMBOLIZATION COIL IMPLANT BECAME DETACHED UNEXPECTEDLY AND WAS REMOVED WITHOUT INTERVENTION. THERE WAS NO REPORTED PATIENT INJURY.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 13085525 ↗
  • MalfunctionDec 10, 2021Detachment of Device or Device Component; Device-Device Incompatibility; Detachment of Device or Device Component; Device-Device Incompatibility

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT AN EMBOLIZATION COIL IMPLANT BECAME STUCK IN THE MICROCATHETER AND DETACHED WITHIN IT. THERE WAS NO REPORTED PATIENT INJURY OR INTERVENTION.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 12981342 ↗
  • MalfunctionOct 26, 2021Inadequacy of Device Shape and/or Size; Detachment of Device or Device Component; Inadequacy of Device Shape and/or Size; Detachment of Device or Device Component

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING AN EMBOLIZATION TREATMENT OF A PANCREATIC PSEUDO ANEURYSM, THE PHYSICIAN WAS UNABLE TO GET AN EMBOLIZATION COIL IMPLANT TO FORM TO THEIR LIKING AND DECIDED TO REMOVE THE IMPLANT. UPON ATTEMPTED REMOVAL, THE IMPLANT DETACHED UNEXPECTEDLY AND REMAINED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE TREATMENT SITE. THERE WAS NO REPORTED INTERVENTION OR PATIENT INJURY. THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 12698518 ↗
  • InjuryMar 20, 2019Difficult or Delayed Positioning; Difficult to Remove; Detachment of Device or Device Component; Difficult or Delayed Positioning; Difficult to Remove; Detachment of Device or Device Component

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT AFTER REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO REPOSITION AN EMBOLIZATION COIL IN THE GASTRODUODENAL ARTERY, THE COIL DETACHED INSIDE THE MICROCATHETER. THE DETACHED COIL WAS REMOVED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH A SNARE DEVICE WITHOUT INCIDENT. THERE WAS NO REPORTED PATIENT INJURY. THE PATIENT WAS REPORTED TO BE STABLE.

    Patient problems: No Consequences Or Impact To Patient

    MAUDE report 8438086 ↗
  • MalfunctionOct 28, 2018Detachment of Device or Device Component; Detachment of Device or Device Component

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING TREATMENT OF A GASTRODUODENAL ARTERY ANEURYSM, THE EMBOLIZATION COIL DETACHED IN THE MICROCATHETER. THE COIL HAD NOT ENTERED THE PATIENT AND WAS REMOVED IN ITS ENTIRETY ALONG WITH THE MICROCATHETER. THERE WAS NO REPORTED PATIENT INJURY OR INTERVENTION. THE PATIENT WAS REPORTED TO BE STABLE.

    Patient problems: No Consequences Or Impact To Patient

    MAUDE report 8011167 ↗
  • InjurySep 21, 2018Detachment of Device or Device Component; Detachment of Device or Device Component

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING REPOSITIONING OF AN EMBOLIZATION COIL IN A RUPTURED ANEURYSM, RESISTANCE WAS ENCOUNTERED AND THEN THE COIL DETACHED IN THE VESSEL. HEMOSTASIS WAS SUCCESSFULLY ACHIEVED; HOWEVER, THE COIL WAS POSITIONED SUBOPTIMALLY, A LITTLE LOWER THAN EXPECTED, WHICH OCCLUDED A RELATIVELY LARGE SPLENIC VESSEL. AS A RESULT, THE PATIENT RECEIVED APPROPRIATE VACCINES DUE TO THE POSSIBLE RISK OF SPLENIC INFARCTION AND POTENTIAL FOR ASPLENIA. THERE WAS NO CLINICAL CONSEQUENCE TO THE PATIENT, AND THE PATIENT IS CURRENTLY REPORTED TO BE FEELING WELL.

    Patient problems: Vascular System (Circulation), Impaired

    MAUDE report 7900189 ↗

Other Device, Vascular, for Promoting Embolization devices

All Device, Vascular, for Promoting Embolization devices →

Sources and updates

How reports and recalls are matched · Editorial policy · Report an error on this page