Skip to content

Merit S-MAK™ 00884450012642Recalls & reported problems

Merit Medical Systems, Inc. · Class 2

All models of Merit S-MAK (6)

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

Adverse event reports
8
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
5
Recalls naming it
0

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 8 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 00884450012642), received between Jun 29, 2021 and Feb 20, 2025 — classified as 5 injuries, 3 malfunctions.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Fracture” (7 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: 0 reportsFeb 2024: 0 reportsMar 2024: 0 reportsApr 2024: 0 reportsMay 2024: 0 reportsJun 2024: 0 reportsJul 2024: 0 reportsAug 2024: 0 reportsSep 2024: 1 reportsOct 2024: 0 reportsNov 2024: 0 reportsDec 2024: 0 reportsJan 2025: 0 reportsFeb 2025: 1 reportsMar 2025: 0 reportsApr 2025: 0 reportsMay 2025: 0 reportsJun 2025: 0 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: 0 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

  • Fracture7
  • Material Separation6
  • Material Integrity Problem1
  • Material Twisted/Bent1
  • Unraveled Material1

Patient problems

  • Foreign Body In Patient5
  • No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions3

Recent adverse event reports

The 8 most recent of 8 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • MalfunctionFeb 20, 2025Fracture; Material Separation; Fracture; Material Separation

    THE ACCOUNT ALLEGES THE TIP OF THE WIRE (LESS THAN 1MM) DETACHED IN THE SOFT TISSUE OF THE NECK DURING THE PROCEDURE. THE INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGIST AND PEDIATRIC SURGEON RECOMMENDED NO INTERVENTION, INTENTIONALLY LEAVING THE TIP OF THE WIRE WITHIN THE TISSUE.

    Patient problems: Foreign Body In Patient

    MAUDE report 21420480 ↗
  • MalfunctionSep 3, 2024Fracture; Material Separation; Fracture; Material Separation

    THE ACCOUNT ALLEGES THAT DURING A FEMORAL ENTRY CATH PROCEDURE THE INNER DILATOR BROKE WITHIN THE PATIENT. THE BROKEN PIECE WAS SUCCESSFULLY REMOVED FROM THE PATIENT. NO ADDITIONAL PATIENT CONSEQUENCE TO REPORT.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 20131242 ↗
  • InjuryAug 22, 2023Fracture; Material Integrity Problem; Fracture; Material Integrity Problem

    THE ACCOUNT ALLEGES THAT THE MICRO PUNCTURE WIRE BROKE OFF WITHIN THE PATIENT. THE PHYSICIAN WAS ABLE TO SNARE THE WIRE SUCCESSFULLY TO REMOVE IT.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 17595922 ↗
  • InjuryFeb 1, 2023Unraveled Material; Material Twisted/Bent; Unraveled Material; Material Twisted/Bent

    THE ACCOUNT ALLEGES THAT WHILE ATTEMPTING ANTERIOR TIBIAL [AT] ARTERY ACCESS FOR A PERIPHERAL VASCULAR PROCEDURE, THE ACCESS WIRE STARTED TO UNRAVEL. THE PHYSICIAN HAD ACQUIRED RETROGRADE ARTERIAL ACCESS BUT WAS NOT HAPPY WITH THE WIRE LOCATION. THE PHYSICIAN REMOVED THE ACCESS NEEDLE AND WIRE TOGETHER. THE ACCESS WIRE WAS TRAPPED WITHIN THE PATIENT. THE WIRE HAD STARTED TO UNCOIL BUT WAS SUCCESSFULLY REMOVED. THE ACCOUNT ALLEGES THAT THE ACCESS WIRE TIP HAD BEEN RETRIEVED FROM THE PATIENT. A NEW DEVICE WAS USED TO COMPLETE THE PATIENT PROCEDURE. NO ADDITIONAL PATIENT CONSEQUENCES TO REPORT.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 16278574 ↗
  • InjuryMay 11, 2022Fracture; Material Separation; Fracture; Material Separation

    THE ACCOUNT ALLEGES THAT WHILE OBTAINING VEIN ACCESS FOR A LEFT-SIDED PACEMAKER IMPLANT, THE DEVICE BECAME ENTANGED AND THE TIP OF THE DEVICE DETACHED WITHIN THE PATIENT. AFTER CONSULTATION, IT WAS DECIDED BY THE CLINICAN TO LEAVE THE FOREIGN BODY WITHIN THE PATIENT AS THE RISKS WERE DEEMED TO OUTWEIGHED THE BENEFITS OF RETRIEVAL. NO ADDITIONAL PATIENT CONSEQUENCE TO REPORT.

    Patient problems: Foreign Body In Patient

    MAUDE report 14366283 ↗
  • MalfunctionMay 11, 2022Fracture; Material Separation; Fracture; Material Separation

    THE ACCOUNT ALLEGES THAT DURING VASCULAR ACCESS FOR A PROCEDURE, THE TIP OF THE ACCESS WIRE BROKE OFF AND BECAME EMBEDDED WITHIN THE PATIENT'S TISSUE. POST PROCEDURE. THE PATIENT REQUIRED AN EMERGENT MRI FOR NON-RELATED ISSUE. THE ACCOUNT WAS NOTIFIED THAT MERIT DOES NOT HAVE MRI COMPATIBILITY DATA ON ACCESS WIRE TIPS. IT IS UNKNOWN IF THE PATIENT COMPLETED AN MRI STUDY. THE TIP HAS NOT BEEN REMOVED. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS EVENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED.

    Patient problems: Foreign Body In Patient

    MAUDE report 14365497 ↗
  • InjuryNov 9, 2021Fracture; Material Separation; Fracture; Material Separation

    THE ACCOUNT ALLEGES THAT THE WIRE COMPLETELY BROKE AND A C-ARM WAS NEEDED TO RETRIEVE THE BROKEN PIECE. NO PATIENT HARM REPORTED.

    Patient problems: Foreign Body In Patient

    MAUDE report 12780941 ↗
  • InjuryJun 29, 2021Fracture; Material Separation; Fracture; Material Separation

    THE ACCOUNT ALLEGES THAT IN THE OR THE TIP BROKE OFF OF THE MICRO PUNCTURE KIT. PATIENT WAS SENT TO INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY FOR REMOVAL OF THE PORTION OF THE WIRE.

    Patient problems: Foreign Body In Patient

    MAUDE report 12088470 ↗

Other DILATOR, VESSEL, FOR PERCUTANEOUS CATHETERIZATION devices

All DILATOR, VESSEL, FOR PERCUTANEOUS CATHETERIZATION devices →

Sources and updates

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